Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

New Deal

David Wright: If he will make a statement on public expenditure on the new deal.

Dari Taylor: If he will make a statement on public expenditure on the new deal.

Gordon Brown: At a cost of £3.6 billion, the new deal has helped 2 million men and women. It has moved 1.2 million into work, contributed to a fall in long-term unemployment of over three quarters, and helped the creation of 2 million jobs. Every week 125,000 men and women are finding new jobs. Compared with 1997, the Government now spend £5 billion a year less on unemployment benefits.

David Wright: Over 870 young people in Telford have benefited from the new deal. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to protect that programme, and look at ways in which we can integrate it with modern apprenticeships?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend represents the interests of the people of Telford with great distinction. Unemployment since 1997 has fallen by half, and is 2.5 per cent. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 77 per cent. and youth unemployment by 80 per cent. All that would be put at risk if the Tories' policy to abolish the new deal were implemented.

Dari Taylor: The new deal in my constituency, Stockton, South, has helped over 2,500 people into work. In the northern region that figure is more than 150,000. Could the new deal be extended as an employment support programme to the disabled, supporting programmes such as Blind Routes to Work, an initiative of Stockton Blind People's Voice?

Gordon Brown: I will certainly look into that with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As my hon. Friend knows, unemployment in Stockton, South has fallen dramatically since 1997. There has been a 70 per cent. cut in long-term unemployment and an 80 per cent. cut in youth unemployment. One of the reasons why that has happened is the existence of the new deal. It is therefore sad that both the Liberal party and the Conservative party want to abolish it.

Stephen Dorrell: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer produce a single piece of independent research evidence to support the inflated claims that the Government continue to make for the new deal? Is it not the case that the most recent research into the cost per job created by the new deal shows that the number of jobs actually created in addition to those that were created by a normally buoyant economy is at best 17,000 a year? Are not the figures cited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a continuing example of inflated claims which he cannot substantiate with any independent research?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman speaks about a buoyant economy. Who is responsible for a buoyant economy? I am grateful for the gratitude he expresses to the Government. In his own constituency, would he not congratulate us also—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should get more interested in his own constituency. Unemployment has fallen by 41 per cent. since 1997. He asks what the evidence is. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimated that the economy is £500 million a year richer as a result of the new deal. The national institute conceded that without the new deal, the level of long-term unemployment would be twice as high. That is the evidence, and that is why the Opposition are making a mistake by abolishing the new deal.

Mark Francois: I appreciate that the Chancellor has a particular interest in methods of helping people to find new jobs, but even allowing for that, how can the Government explain the fact that despite the new deal the number of people under 25 not in employment, education or training has risen and stands at more than 1.1 million? Why is the new deal failing those young people so badly?

Gordon Brown: The Opposition ask the same question as they asked last month and I dealt with it then. The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went to his local jobcentre last Friday in Daventry to claim credit for the opening of Jobcentre Plus. That is the Conservative party which, in the House of Commons, wants to abolish the new deal, privatise Jobcentre Plus and make thousands of civil servants unemployed. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) should go back and think again.

International Finance Facility

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on progress made with G8 partners on support for the international finance facility.

Ian Lucas: what steps he is taking to promote the international finance facility.

Gordon Brown: Frontloading aid and doubling it through the international finance facility would enable us to provide free primary education for all young children and help to meet the millennium development goals by 2015. Fifty countries have indicated support for the IFF and for the pilot IFF on immunisation in partnership with the Gates Foundation. It would frontload $4 billion of investment in vaccination and could save 5 million young lives between now and 2015.

Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his commendable efforts in trying to secure the additional aid that the world needs to eradicate poverty. As he knows, a number of alternative forms of financing aid have recently been proposed, including a revised form of the Tobin tax and a tax on aviation fuel. Has he had an opportunity to assess those particular alternatives and whether the international community is likely to accept such proposals to try to achieve the goal of doubling aid?

Gordon Brown: A few weeks ago, the G7 meeting of Finance Ministers agreed to examine all those specific proposals. The advantages of the international finance facility are that it would frontload aid, that it could be implemented immediately, and that it would provide the necessary money to give us a chance of meeting our millennium development goals.
	If present rates of progress were to continue in sub-Saharan Africa, we would not meet the goal of primary education for all by 2015—we would meet it in 2150, 135 years late—which is why additional finance is required and why the world community must examine the provision of resources. Scientists have highlighted malaria in a report published today, and the additional money provided by the IFF could enable the provision of malaria bed nets, which can save a life at the very small cost of less than $10.
	The IFF will also allow us to introduce an advance purchase scheme for the newly developed malaria vaccine, which is being tested in Mozambique, and the drugs companies and the Gates Foundation believe that it could be up and running as a preventive vaccine very soon. Advance purchasing, which the rich countries must support, will be required, which is another reason why we need the frontloading mechanism.

Ian Lucas: It is excellent news that the German Government have swung behind the IFF, but the real concern is the US Government's position. Will my right hon. Friend give us his assessment of the US Government's position, and tell us what steps he has taken to persuade them?

Gordon Brown: When President Bush spoke at the debt and development conference in Monterrey, he said that no country that is making the necessary reforms to achieve economic development should be denied resources for health and education. After that speech, the Americans set up the millennium challenge account and trebled their spending on HIV/AIDS. In our discussions over the next few months, we will examine how each continent can support the IFF and other innovative financing mechanisms. We hope to reach an agreement with all our G7 partners, and I believe that the developed world is looking to the G7 and to the UN special summit to achieve a settlement that will make it possible for us to achieve the millennium development goals.

Peter Tapsell: Does the latest International Monetary Fund report suggest to the Chancellor that his ministerial colleagues on the G8 may be losing confidence in his capacity to guide the international finance facility or, indeed, the British economy? The report warns of the likely necessity of a massive rise in British taxes by £10 billion a year to fill the black hole in the Chancellor's calculations, following what the IMF describes as a sharp deterioration in Britain's public accounts over the past five years.

Gordon Brown: Trust the hon. Gentleman to turn a question about developing countries into a question not about the IFF, but about the IMF—he is wrong to do so. The IMF has praised the British Government on their macro-economic management.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the Chancellor's efforts to speed up aid flows through the IFF. At this week's meeting of ECOFIN Ministers, what success did he have in dealing with the European Commission and its statisticians, who say that IFF contributions cannot be treated as contingent liabilities and be taken off the balance sheet, but that they must be counted against Government borrowing debt, thereby imperilling the pledged contributions from France and Germany? How will that problem be dealt with in terms of Britain's public accounts?

Gordon Brown: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong—the matter was not discussed at the ECOFIN meeting. Secondly, EUROSTAT is independent of ECOFIN, and it makes independent judgments. Thirdly, EUROSTAT has said no such thing. The hon. Gentleman has been reading speculation in the newspapers, which is invariably inaccurate.
	Along with the Gates Foundation, we are considering a proposal for a pilot facility for vaccination, which many countries, including South Africa, Canada and Scandinavian countries, would support. That proposal has not yet gone before EUROSTAT, but it should be accepted, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Andy Reed: The Chancellor is to be congratulated on coming up with the initiative of the IFF and on the work that he has done to make progress so far, but what assessment has he made of the impact of the discussions to date on how far he will be able to go? Without reaching the £100 billion target that he has set himself, most of the targets in the millennium development goals will not be met. Does he have any ideas about ways in which other countries will be able to buy into the idea of 0.7 per cent. through different finance facilities, if not through the IFF?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is chairman of an all-party committee on these matters, which will continue to be discussed. Our first aim is get 100 per cent. debt relief for the multilateral debts owed by the poorest countries. That would itself provide substantial additional resources on an annual basis for those countries. Our second aim is to get the IFF pilot set up. I believe that there is now sufficient support for the vaccination pilot to move ahead very quickly; it is not necessary for the whole world to support it. Our third aim, which will be discussed at the G8 at Gleneagles, is the creation of the new facility itself.
	My hon. Friend may see tomorrow a report from the Commission for Africa which will recommend that we move fast to set up the facility. Those are the next three stages. I believe that we will see success in the first and second very soon, and the third is a matter for debate at Gleneagles.

Environment

Norman Baker: What further plans he has to encourage the adoption of good environmental practice through the use of economic instruments.

John Healey: We will continue to build on the success that we are achieving in the use of economic measures to protect the environment. As with other taxes, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give a policy update in the Budget next week.

Norman Baker: Does the Economic Secretary agree with the conclusions of the report on fiscal incentives published last month by the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Green Alliance, which said that many people felt that
	"the government was providing clear signals about the importance of climate change and the need to take action, but that there was no clear link between this overall message and individual policies."
	In other words, the Government's use of economic instruments is not working. Will they, in particular, consider replacing the climate change levy with a carbon tax and stop trying to water down Britain's commitments under the EU emissions trading scheme?

John Healey: I do not agree with that at all, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the range of measures that we have introduced since 1997 he will realise that it is a difficult argument to sustain. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the environment—he speaks on that subject for his party—but his problem is the Liberal Democrats' lack of credibility and consistency. They always say one thing and do another. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they have been rumbled, because the director of Greenpeace has said that they
	"lecture other political parties on the environment and then fail to apply those principles in places which they actually control."

Tam Dalyell: Will Ministers get together with Derek Simpson and his senior colleagues in the engineering section of Amicus? What could be a better economic instrument to help the environment than doing something to finance new nuclear stations at Sizewell, Hinckley and Hunterston?

John Healey: As it happens, I was with senior officials from the Amicus union, including the general secretary, only last Friday, but they did not raise that matter with me. If my hon. Friend would like to bring a delegation of officials from that union who have an interest in this, I would happily see him to discuss those issues.

Howard Flight: Do the Government believe in the implicit principle of their environmental taxes—that fiscal incentives and disincentives drive behaviour in this and other areas?

John Healey: The short and simple answer is yes. It is fundamental to the rationale of many of the polices that we have introduced. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have dealt with these matters in our discussions on Finance Bills, it is not simply a question of environmental taxes—other economic measures such as voluntary arrangements, trading agreements and public support measures are often equally important in tacking the challenges that we face in relation to climate change.

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend will know about the difficulty of disposing of plastics and the problems that it causes the environment. What can his Treasury colleagues do to encourage small firms that want to innovate through trying to find other sources and different ways of disposing of plastics? Econoplas, a firm in my constituency, converts and recycles plastics to create an effective drainage medium, which helps to benefit the environment through drainage schemes in rural areas. Would my hon. Friend be interested in hearing about that good innovation and bringing it to the attention of the regional development agencies?

John Healey: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's efforts to promote the interests of businesses and jobs in his constituency, and I pay tribute to him for that. I will write to him with details of new tax reliefs that we have recently put in place precisely to encourage the development of new, environmentally friendly technologies. If those special reliefs to try to help us to tackle some of the environmental problems that confront us are of interest to the company that he mentioned, I will happily meet him and the company.

Michael Jack: I am sure that the Economic Secretary acknowledges that carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector have continued to increase in recent years. Why, therefore, has no United Kingdom bioethanol plant been built so far, to fulfil our European Union requirements to blend biofuels with non-biofuels? Why has the European Union apparently rejected Britain's proposals for emissions trading in the air sector?

John Healey: In fact, transport-related emissions have fallen by 50 per cent. in the past decade. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the duty discounts—of which he was one of the strongest advocates, and I pay tribute to him for that—to support the development of the market in and UK production of bioethanol were introduced only in January. It is therefore a little early to tell.

G7 Presidency

Paddy Tipping: What economic priorities he has set to be achieved during the presidency of the G7.

Gordon Brown: Our aims are: that all countries agree to play their part in maintaining global growth and stability; that structural economic reform is taken forward to increase growth; and that, with the reform of the international institutions, we ensure that the world's poorest can share in rising prosperity. Tomorrow, the Commission for Africa will publish its report and the G7 and G8 in Gleneagles will consider it.

Paddy Tipping: Will the Chancellor continue to give Africa a high priority? Ten million people there are co-infected with HIV and TB. Tuberculosis is growing at 4 per cent. and, in parts of the region, only one in three people complete a TB drug programme. Would not investment make a significant difference?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is right and I praise him for his work. Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria are the diseases that are responsible for millions of people dying unnecessarily every year. The purpose of creating the global health fund was to ensure the capacity to treat them and the availability of immunisation and vaccinations. That is why it is especially appropriate today, when the scientists' report on malaria is published, that the British Government say that we are prepared not only to contribute towards vaccination for tuberculosis but to join other countries in purchasing and therefore financing an advance purchase mechanism for the new drug that may be a preventive vaccine for malaria. When similar work is done on HIV/AIDS, it will be necessary for the Governments of the richest countries to come together to support vaccination and the preventive work on that, too. That is the best contribution that we can make: not only helping in the short term with bed nets for malaria and vaccination for tuberculosis, but saying that, when those drugs are discovered, we will be behind the first advance purchase scheme in the world whereby the rich countries help the poor.

Oliver Letwin: One of the priorities for the G7 is obviously a sustainable tax policy. Has the Chancellor had time, during his pre-election overseas sabbaticals, to consider how to respond to the fact that the tax burden in other G7 countries has fallen by 2.5 per cent. of GDP since 1997? What has happened to our tax burden in the same period?

Gordon Brown: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that tax policy is a matter for national Governments, not international institutions. On the tax take in Britain, I am greatly influenced by his comments on taxation. He said:
	"The sad truth is that when we were in office we made promises on tax we couldn't keep".
	Our policy on taxation has been: to reduce the basic rate of income tax; to introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax; to cut capital gains tax from 40p to 10p for long-term investment, and to cut corporation tax from 33p to 30p and small business tax from 23p to 19p. That is the record on which we are proud to stand. We are also proud that we have financed the health service by our decision to raise national insurance. I notice that abolishing that is not part of the Conservatives' manifesto now—they lost the argument on the health service.

Oliver Letwin: Unfortunately, the Chancellor does not seem to want to answer the question. It is perfectly clear why not: while the tax burden in other G7 countries has been falling, Britain's tax burden has been rising. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) pointed out a moment or two ago, the other G7 Governments will this week be reading the latest International Monetary Fund report, which shows clearly that the Chancellor, on his spending plans, would have to raise taxes further in the next cycle. As he is so reluctant to tell the people of this country, will he tell the IMF and the other G7 Governments which taxes he proposes to raise?

Gordon Brown: I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman, who does not seem to be able to listen, that we have cut the basic rate of income tax, we have cut income tax through the 10p rate, we have cut capital gains tax, we have cut corporate tax and we have cut small business tax. When he stood in the 1997 election, he had to report that the Conservative party had raised taxes in many different areas. We will not take any lectures from the Conservative party on taxation. The leader of the Conservative party said to his conference on 5 October:
	"In 1992 we promised to cut taxes year on year. But we put them up."

John McFall: The Chancellor is aware that the Treasury Committee visited China last week in the wake of his successful visit. During his visit, did he detect a positive attitude by the Chinese authorities to engage with the G7, the IMF and the World Bank? During our presidency of the G7, has the Chancellor made any progress in ensuring the reform of those international forums, to take account of the current hugely significant impact of China on the global economy?

Gordon Brown: As my right hon. Friend knows, as he is well versed in these matters, China has been present at the last two meetings of the G7 Finance Ministers for a discussion on its economy and the world economy. China, India, South Africa and Brazil will be invited to a special meeting of the G8 summit at Gleneagles with the other G8 leaders. The level of engagement with China is therefore increasing every year. What I found in China was a willingness on the part of China to co-operate with the United Kingdom, a huge market for exports of British goods in the future, and a huge interest in working with this British Government to solve some of the global problems, including international debt and poverty in the poorest countries.

Julia Drown: Will one of the economic priorities include trade justice? Does the Chancellor think that he can use his position to consider agricultural subsidies, both from America and the common agricultural policy, so that we can get serious reform? At the moment, subsidised exports are being dumped on the poorest people in the world, and they cannot afford that to continue.

Gordon Brown: I understand the work that my hon. Friend has done in promoting both trade justice and debt relief over the past few years. We are all grateful for the work, which has brought significant results, with non-governmental organisations and others. Over the next few months, the pressure will grow on America and the European Union to enable an agreement on world trade to be possible in Hong Kong in December. Our proposal to end export subsidies is essential. It will also be necessary for us to offer to help countries in Africa, in particular, to have the capacity to enable them to trade. They will need investment in infrastructure, transport and communications so that they can trade fairly with the rest of the world. Part of the settlement at Hong Kong depends on our ability to provide additional overseas development aid to enable infrastructure to be built in those countries.

David Laws: Will the Chancellor make it one of his G7 priorities to get international agreement on rules on Government borrowing? Does he still stand by the statement that he made in a speech in 1995, before he was elected to Government, that there should be tough, independent, external scrutiny of whether the Government are meeting their fiscal rules?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows that every organisation in the world comments on fiscal figures in every country. There is not a lack of external scrutiny of our figures. Scrutiny of the Liberal Democrats' figures might be improved, however, because none of the sums add up.

European Union Budget

Joyce Quin: What recent discussions he has had with the voluntary sector concerning his Department's negotiations with EU partners about the future of the EU budget.

Stephen Timms: Treasury Ministers regularly meet representatives of the voluntary sector. Discussions have covered United Kingdom calls for reform of the European Union budget, including our call for its stabilisation at no more than 1 per cent. of EU gross national income.

Joyce Quin: As my hon. Friend knows, in areas such as the north-east the voluntary sector has been very successful in tapping into European funds, but faces financial uncertainty because of changes in that funding as well as in lottery and single regeneration budget funding. Given the huge contribution that the voluntary sector makes to economic and social regeneration throughout the country, will my hon. Friend undertake to consult the sector and listen to its views in order to safeguard its vital work for the future?

Stephen Timms: Yes, I shall certainly want to listen to the views of organisations in the voluntary and community sector. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of their contribution in the north-east—she has spoken to me about the Invest 2006 campaign—and elsewhere in the country, including work funded partly by European structural funds. Three quarters of the money, however, currently comes from the UK Government rather than the EU. For every pound of structural fund money that we receive, we pay out £1.60.
	I think my right hon. Friend will agree that there is no value in rich EU member states merely swapping regional funds among themselves. We want structural funds to go to poor member states; but we have given a guarantee that if our proposals are accepted, we will increase UK funding so that the UK nations and English regions do not lose out. We will certainly want to take full account of the views of organisations in the voluntary and community sector when we do that.

Anne McIntosh: In the light of the Minister's answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the Chancellor's rather emotional outburst in Brussels this week, does the Minister accept that member states should decide how to raise taxes and spend EU funds? Is there not a remarkable distortion of the system at present, in that nearly all the structural funds are being spent in Labour-controlled constituencies?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Lady must know that objective criteria are used, and always have been.
	We see a pressing need for reform of the structural fund system. At present, substantial sums are effectively being swapped between rich member states. They should be being used to support the less well-off member states: that is where they could do the most good. The Government's commitment to regional funding remains very strong.

David Cairns: I represent a Labour-controlled constituency in which industry was decimated in the 1980s and poverty increased. We are extremely grateful for the assistance that has come to the constituency from European funds, and for the massive extra investment that has come directly from the Government. Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that there is still uncertainty in the voluntary sector and elsewhere about what the future holds, and that it is important to discuss with voluntary organisations ways in which they can address themselves to the new reality and the increased funding that will come through central Government and the Scottish Executive?

Stephen Timms: I do agree with that. The Luxembourg presidency aims to conclude the budget discussions by June this year. We shall have to see how it gets on, but it is important for everyone who is affected to be given the information that they need as soon as possible.

Government Borrowing

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the level of Government net borrowing.

Julian Lewis: What representations he has received regarding levels of Government net borrowing.

Paul Boateng: The 2004 pre-Budget report set out the Treasury's latest projections for net borrowing. Updated estimates will be published in next week's Budget.

Nicholas Winterton: As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for a factual reply.
	The Government have some ambitious expenditure plans. Some are very desirable, but many of the most responsible economic forecasters, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the International Monetary Fund, believe that the Government may have to breach their golden rule. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will consider reducing expenditure, increasing taxation or increasing borrowing? Manufacturing industry awaits Government decisions with great interest.

Paul Boateng: Like the hon. Gentleman's party, those organisations have been wrong before and they are wrong again. The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee, which constantly urged investment in the health service during the period of the Conservative Government. He well knows that this Government have embarked on a programme that involves moderate borrowing, but it is justified by the need to bridge the years of under-investment in public services that occurred under the Conservative Government, which he drew attention to himself. The reality is that our borrowing is sustainable because at the outset of the Labour Government we took the hard, tough decisions which the Conservative Government singularly failed to take throughout their 18 years of misrule.

Julian Lewis: In his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), the Chancellor painted a rather rosy picture of what the IMF said about the British economy and its borrowing. In fact, the report said that many directors viewed the British authorities' projections to be "somewhat more optimistic" than warranted. Does not the build-up to a £10 billion black hole mean that the Chancellor is going to leave a pretty poor legacy to his successor, whether it be my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor or, perish the thought, the Chancellor's own special pal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Paul Boateng: Nothing could be further from the truth. Each and every one of the hon. Gentleman's assertions was wrong. I would draw his attention to what the IMF really said. For example, it said:
	"Economic performance in the United Kingdom remains impressive . . . This success owes much to strong institutions underpinned by clear and well-designed policy frameworks . . . Fiscal policy is bound by well-constructed rules to which the authorities have reaffirmed their commitment".
	None of those things could ever have been said about a Conservative Government. That is why, in the fullness of time, the British people will return a Labour Government and reject the option on offer from Conservative Members.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing wrong with borrowing? The golden rule is about what one does with the money that has been borrowed. The Government have invested in education, health and the new deal, so they have spent that money wisely in comparison with previous Governments who borrowed to the hilt and spent the money on things that produced no jobs, no employment and no investment.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ten years ago, the deficit stood at the equivalent in today's money of some £90 billion. Today it is £35 billion and we are meeting our fiscal rules. In the last full year of the Conservative Administration, they were spending more on servicing debt than they were on schools. That is the difference between them and us, and my hon. Friend is quite right to draw the House's attention to it.

Brian Jenkins: Congratulations are due to the Chancellor for taking brave decisions to reduce our national debt. Much of the tax that our citizens pay can now be spent on services rather than on interest to fund that debt. We all recognise that, over the cycle, borrowing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this is Question Time, not statement time? The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) did not actually ask a question and I have not yet heard one from the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins). Will he now put his question succinctly?

Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, when it comes to the push, we will not use borrowing to avoid taking the tough decisions that are needed to keep our economy stable, which has happened in the past?

Paul Boateng: We have never avoided taking tough decisions. We have always stood by our fiscal rules and we will continue to stick by them. That is what has given our economy the sound macro-economic base that has seen 50 consecutive periods of growth.

George Osborne: The Chief Secretary will have noticed with his legendary eye for detail that Government forecasts for borrowing are £34 billion this year—three times what the Chancellor himself predicted at the beginning of this Parliament. The reason for it is the black hole in Government finances. Will the Chief Secretary give the House an assurance that capital gains tax on people's homes will not be one of the taxes that Labour increases, if it wins the election?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman knows that decisions on taxation are announced in the Budget. He also knows, as does the House, that the country believes this Government in a way that it never believed the previous Conservative Government. People know that we will do what is right by the economy and that we will keep our promises on tax. The Conservatives never did that, and as a result they presided over successive periods of boom and bust. There will be no return to boom and bust.

George Osborne: People remember that the Government promised there would be no tax increases under them, but in fact there have been 66 tax rises. Will the Chief Secretary take this second opportunity to reassure home owners that capital gains tax will not be levied on their homes, and that no one in the Treasury is looking at that?

Paul Boateng: What people know is that the Tories consistently failed to keep their promises on tax. They know that it was the Tories who raised value added tax on fuel, and gave this country double-digit inflation and interest rates and 3 million unemployed. There will be no return to the days when the Tories ruined the economy. If people compare and contrast their record on tax and growth with ours, this Government win hands down, every time.

David Taylor: There has indeed been a remarkable transformation since 1 May 1997, when debt stood at 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. It is now at 35 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the private finance initiative—which is expensive, inflexible and unnecessary—is not wiping off so much debt that the present figure of 35 per cent. of GDP would, if it were reassessed according to normal international standards, be in the low 40s?

Paul Boateng: We consistently operate according to what my hon. Friend calls normal international standards. Our borrowing is sustainable, and we borrow to invest. We are meeting our fiscal rules and will continue to do so over this cycle and beyond. That forecast is based on the cautious, audited and internationally recognised assumptions that have caused this country to have a record on growth and stability that is the envy of the G7.

Child Tax Credit

Andrew Turner: How much child tax credit has been (a) overpaid and (b) recovered in the past 12 months.

Dawn Primarolo: Statistics on tax credit overpayments will be published by the Office for National Statistics in the spring. The overpayments are mainly being recovered through payment reductions in later awards.

Andrew Turner: If the statistics are going to be published, I do not see why the Minister should not give them to the House. However, does she agree with The Guardian that £2 billion in overpaid tax credit was wasted up to 2003 because it was written off as irrecoverable? Does she also agree with Advice Northern Ireland that families who need to claim the benefit are extremely unlikely to have cash lying around that they can repay to the Inland Revenue? Are not waste on overpayments, and the misery faced by those from whom the overpayments are recovered, the hallmarks of this policy?

Dawn Primarolo: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hallmark of the policy in his constituency alone is that 10,800 families receive tax credits. That does not include those who claim income support or jobseeker's allowance. On average, those families receive considerably more than they did under either family credit or working tax credit. The reason why I cannot give him the statistics is that they are a matter for the ONS, and not for me.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many thousands of people in Wallasey receive child tax credit and that they are extremely grateful for the substantial increase in living standards that it gives them? They are also grateful for the extra chances that it gives many people to go to work and make it pay. That is why unemployment in my constituency has fallen by more than 60 per cent. since this Government came to power.

Dawn Primarolo: The House will know that, in real terms, families with children will be better off by an average £1,300 a year. The poorest fifth of the population are, on average, £3,000 a year better off. There is a massive programme of support for working families. We want to help them to balance their commitments to paid employment and to their children.

David Curry: The right hon. Lady asked to see copies of the letters that the Inland Revenue has written to people who have been overpaid. Would she note that the Inland Revenue blames them for not realising that they have been overpaid? Would she tell the Inland Revenue that this sort of bureaucratic arrogance is entirely unacceptable, and that its staff should remember that they are there to serve the people?

Dawn Primarolo: I am actually very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who had a private conversation with me a week or two ago, precisely on the phrasing of some of the letters that the Inland Revenue is sending out. I can tell him that as a result of the conversation with him I have asked that those letters be sent to me, I have asked that the phraseology be considered again, and I have made very strongly the points that he made to me then and has now made in the Chamber.

Minimum Wage

Jim Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the impact of the increase in the level of the minimum wage on women and ethnic minorities in the work force.

Mike Hall: What assessment he has made of the effect of the national minimum wage on low-paid workers.

John Healey: Around 1 million workers have benefited from the minimum wage each year since it was introduced, around two-thirds of those beneficiaries being women. This year, the increase in the national minimum wage takes the rate above £5 for the first time ever, which will guarantee a pay rise to 1.3 million workers in October.

Jim Cunningham: Can my hon. Friend clarify whether a 21-year-old will be paid the adult minimum wage, and if there is no intention to do that, can he tell us why not?

John Healey: We have indeed considered that; it was recommended to us by the Low Pay Commission. The economic evidence is mixed, so we have decided to make no change this year, but we will look at it carefully again in future.
	When we bear in mind the 140,000 people who are destined to benefit from the national minimum wage rise in my hon. Friend's region, the real question is whether there will be a minimum wage in the future, and the real concern should be the comments of the shadow Minister for deregulation, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said:
	"there are several ways of dealing with the damage to jobs done by the minimum wage. It could be repealed, or it could be frozen"—[Official Report, 29 April 1999, vol. 330, col. 541.]

Mike Hall: I really do welcome the recent announcements and the increase in the national minimum wage. Through the new deal, a large number of people in my constituency have found work, but there is still one thing that I am concerned about, which is allowing people to become more prosperous when most people at the lower-wage end need more help from the Government. What can my hon. Friend say to me that would give reassurance to my constituents?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right, of course, that the national minimum wage is just part of the set of measures that we need and have put in place to support the wages and take-home pay of poorer families. The national minimum wage should be seen alongside, and working with, tax credits. It is there as an essential guarantee of fair minimum pay for workers, but it cannot reflect family circumstances, so the tax credit, set alongside it, means that we can target help better on tackling poverty for those families. With the two put together, in October, families with one full-time worker and one child will be looking at take-home pay of £7 an hour.

John Bercow: Naturally, the logic of the existence of the minimum wage is that it should be periodically and affordably increased, and the reasonable increases recently announced are therefore heartily welcomed by sensible people. However, given that the poorest fifth of households in this country pay a higher proportion of their income in taxation than any other group, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prime candidates for tax reduction, those for whom we should do most, are those who have least—the poorest people in our country?

John Healey: That is precisely the role of the tax credits.
	On the national minimum wage, I served on the Standing Committee, as the hon. Gentleman did, when we passed the historic National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I remember that he and his colleagues were arguing that it would cost 2 million jobs. They had argued that before 1997, but now there are 2 million more jobs in the British economy, under Labour, with the national minimum wage.
	I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Low Pay Commission, which has looked very carefully at concerns such as his. It has been able to prove that around 1 million workers each year benefit from the national minimum wage, and that the economy has continued to generate new jobs since it was implemented, including in those sectors with a tradition of low pay. This policy is successful. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will give it his full backing.

Employment

Siobhain McDonagh: If he will make a statement on his policy measures to help people into work.

Stephen Timms: Building on a foundation of stability in the economy, the new deal, our investment in skills and training, and our policies to make work pay mean that 28.52 million people are in work in the United Kingdom—the highest number ever and 2 million more than in 1997.

Siobhain McDonagh: In Mitcham and Morden, we have seen staggering reductions in unemployment, but one of the biggest hurdles remaining, particularly for lone parents who want to return to work, is the concern about the reassessment of benefits and the interrelationship between benefits. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments responsible how that can be smoothed even further?

Stephen Timms: I will be very happy to do that. Of course, lone parent employment is above 55 per cent. for the first time ever—10 percentage points up since 1997—but I agree that we need to maintain that progress, and I will be glad to do what my hon. Friend suggests.

David Trimble: I understand the Minister's pleasure at the increase in the number of people in work, but if he breaks down the figures regionally and looks at the regional economic participation ratio, he will find that the ratio in Northern Ireland is about the lowest in the entire country. Has he made any inquiries into why his policies are not having the same success in Northern Ireland as he is celebrating elsewhere?

Stephen Timms: Employment has risen and unemployment fallen in every region and every nation of the UK, and vacancies are close to record levels across the country. Northern Ireland has done very well on employment. There are still concentrations of worklessness in some localities, and we are addressing them, but the picture across the country, in every region, has been a very good one.

G7 Presidency

Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the steps he plans to take during the UK's presidency of the G7 to make further progress towards the millennium development goals.

Stephen Timms: In September, the UN millennium declaration review summit will acknowledge that progress has been too slow. Only two of the 18 goals are on course to be met, so as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said this morning, we will be working in our presidency for an international finance facility to increase aid, for 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief and for a freer and fairer global trade system.

Claire Ward: I was due to speak to the Watford Oxfam and World Development Movement meeting this evening, but owing to the likelihood of business this afternoon, I probably will not get there. I wanted to give them an assurance that we would be working towards achieving those millennium development goals. Can he give me an assurance that I can pass on to them at another time that we will be doing all that we can to ensure that we erase debt and that we can truly make poverty history?

Stephen Timms: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I pay tribute the work of Oxfam and the World Development Movement in her constituency, her work with those organisations and those organisations' work across the country. The campaigning on the issue has been extremely important in bringing about the progress that we are seeing. We need to double total aid flows from $50 billion to $100 billion a year to deliver the millennium goals. That is what the IFF will allow. Alongside that, we have also announced our timetable to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product going to aid by 2013. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said today, the publication of the Commission for Africa report tomorrow will also be a very important step in our developing world leadership in this area.

Martin Smyth: May I congratulate the Minister on the work that is being done, but can we have an assurance that, in a world where we are seeking to help people, we will not encourage Governments to continue to oppress their people and abuse their liberties? On a day when we commemorate the low interest rates of 300 years ago, I should like to think that the liberty and democracy that was brought to our country then will be brought to Africa—to Eritrea, Zimbabwe and, in particular, Sudan and Darfur.

Stephen Timms: I completely agree, and I think the hon. Gentleman will welcome the proposals set out in the Commission for Africa report when it is published tomorrow.

Harry Barnes: Is my hon. Friend aware that emails to Members are flooding in from young people who are galvanised by the "Make Poverty History" campaign? That is probably what led to the incredible number of Members—412—signing early-day motion 9. What can we do as a package during our presidency of the G7 to ensure that serious advances are made towards the objectives of that campaign, which means so much to so many people throughout the world? Thankfully, it means something to the younger generation in this country; they are often said to be uninterested in politics, but they are certainly interested in improving the world.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the enthusiasm, especially, as he rightly says, of young people. When Nelson Mandela spoke in Trafalgar square the other week, I noticed how excited young people from my constituency and throughout the country were about that event and what it signified.
	We are absolutely determined to make progress through our presidency in the three areas that I identified: first, the IFF; secondly, 100 per cent. debt relief on the part of the multilateral organisations; and thirdly, a freer and fairer global trade system. I pay tribute to the work of all those who are campaigning, in particular the faith groups, which have provided a large share of the individual energy that is going into the campaign. "Make Poverty History" is doing a terrific job, and it needs to be continued throughout this year to maintain pressure on all the G7 countries.

First-time Buyers

Alistair Carmichael: What steps he is taking to help first-time home buyers.

Stephen Timms: Low interest rates and high employment have given more people the confidence to buy their houses. Home ownership has risen by 1.5 million since 1997. Shared ownership and equity stake schemes are already helping first-time buyers, and in "Homes for All" my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has set out plans for further progress.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that stamp duty is now another barrier against people becoming first-time home owners? In 1993, when the duty was first applied to homes costing more than £60,000, it affected only 10 per cent. of first-time buyers, but it currently affects 85 per cent. Does he accept that reconsideration of the threshold and where it is set is long overdue?

Stephen Timms: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement next week. However, I can say that the problem with proposals from the Liberal Democrats is that the numbers simply do not add up. Furthermore, it is worth making the point that at present 20 per cent. of residential purchases are exempt from stamp duty, and house purchases of up to £150,000 in the UK's most deprived wards are also exempt.

Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of providing tax incentives for low-cost and shared equity housing schemes for first-time buyers in the growth areas, which include Northampton? Where a large number of houses are being built there are real opportunities to meet some of the needs of first-time buyers who cannot purchase homes elsewhere.

Stephen Timms: I had the opportunity of meeting a number of people in my hon. Friend's constituency earlier this week, and we talked about exactly that point. There is extremely good news for her constituents in my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's paper, "Sustainable Communities: Homes for All", especially the commitment to help more than 80,000 more people into home ownership by 2010. It includes new incentive schemes for first-time buyers and key workers, as well as the use of surplus public sector land—one of the particular topics that arose in that discussion.

Tax

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What percentage of gross domestic product was taken up by taxation in 1997; and what his estimate is for 2007–08.

Paul Boateng: The 2004 pre-Budget report set out the Treasury's latest projections for tax receipts. Updated estimates will be published in next week's Budget.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Chief Secretary for that very full and very informative answer, but can he tell us why, in that 10-year period, tax as a proportion of GDP has gone up 2.5 per cent. in this country, whereas it has gone down 2.5 per cent. for most of our European competitors? Does not that prove once and for all that the Conservative party will always tax lower than the Labour party?

Paul Boateng: That is a tired old mantra. The reality is that the figure has never reached the heights that it did under the last Conservative Administration and that the OECD figures show that we have one of the lowest tax burdens in the European Union, as well as a below-average tax burden compared with the OECD as a whole. That fact has been recognised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who in addressing a Tenon techlocate conference only last year, entitled "Challenges for Regional Development", said:
	"Places like Ireland, the UK, the USA, Hong Kong, Singapore attract because their tax rates for business are low."
	What better endorsement could we have of Labour policy than that?

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 14 March—Second Reading of the Education Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 15 March—Second Reading of the Inquiries Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 16 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 17 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 18 March—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 21 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Tuesday 22 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
	Wednesday 23 March—Second Reading of the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 24 March—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.
	Friday 25 March—The House will not be sitting.
	I should like to inform the House that business in Westminster Hall for 17 and 24 March will be—
	Thursday 17 March—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the use of science in UK international development policy.
	Thursday 24 March—A debate on the UK and Africa.
	The House may also wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, we will rise for Easter on Thursday 24 March and return on Monday 4 April.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. He will be aware of the public concern over the Deputy Prime Minister's latest guidance on unauthorised Traveller sites, which makes it even more difficult for councils to uphold planning law. There is the prospect of even more unrestricted development. Can we have an early statement or a debate so that the Deputy Prime Minister can be challenged on this new initiative?
	Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House about the St. David's day debate. He replied that
	"it will have to come later . . . But there will certainly be a Welsh affairs debate."—[Official Report, 24 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 477.]
	Members in all parts of the House want to raise issues such as the unfair treatment of the Welsh regiments and the rising hospital waiting lists in Wales, where it has been reported that the Leader of the House, in his other job, has told the Welsh Assembly to pull its socks up. We know that Wales was recently missed off the European Union map; now it seems to have been missed off the Order Paper. When will the debate take place?
	In the light of the Chief Secretary's comments earlier today, which suggested that Labour is considering capital gains tax on people's homes, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be an opportunity to discuss this further during the Budget debate? I would like an assurance that there will be a real opportunity to do so.
	What is the last moment at which motion 13 on page 1099 of the Order Paper needs to be passed to be effective in continuing the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001?
	Finally, the last Modernisation Committee report recommended that there should be a system for tabling questions in September, even though we are not sitting in September this year. Can we expect to see a motion from the Leader of the House on the Order Paper soon or will it be left for me to table after our general election victory?

Peter Hain: Dream on. I do not intend to table a motion to that effect.
	On the question of Gypsy sites, the truth is that the ability to deal with the situation lapsed in 1984 when the Tory Government abolished the 1968 duty to provide sites. The Deputy Prime Minister is trying to ensure that there are proper controls on where such sites are put so that local residents are protected and the rights of Travellers are respected. The absence of the measures that the Conservatives repealed in 1984 has caused the current situation.
	There will be a Welsh affairs debate on 4 April—as soon as we get back from the Easter recess. I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance, as I indicated would be the case. He asked what might be discussed in that debate and mentioned national health service waiting times in Wales. There is no way in which the Secretary of State for Wales can order the National Assembly for Wales to do anything within its responsibilities, and the health service and waiting times are included in that. It is true that waiting times have not come down in Wales as quickly as in England, and the First Minister intends to make a statement about that matter in the coming weeks. However, it is also true that the real choice on health services in Wales is between a Labour Government, who are investing more and recruiting more nurses and doctors, and a Conservative Government, who would slash health service provision in Wales, which would lead to rocketing waiting times again.
	I did not hear the comments about capital gains tax to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I think that there must have been some misinterpretation of what was said. I have announced four days of debate on the Budget, so there will be plenty of time for him and his colleagues to raise any matters that they like.
	On the terrorism legislation, a clear choice now faces the House of Commons and Parliament. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Madrid bombing, which was an attack on the people of Spain by terrorists who could mount exactly the same kind of attack on London or anywhere else in Britain. That is why, on the clear advice of the security services and the police, we need new legislation. We have gone the extra mile to find consensus within the House on extra judicial protection, but the Government will not allow the fact that the Conservatives are playing politics with people's security to put us in a position of neglecting the safety and security of our citizens. The House of Lords is inviting the House of Commons to put its and the Conservative party's interests ahead of those of our constituents, but we will not do that. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] That is answering the question directly. We will pursue the legislation because we believe that it is absolutely essential. We have made concessions to build consent in the House. The Bill will provide proper safety and security for our citizens and voters, but it is quite clear that the Conservatives are playing politics.

Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration—perhaps he will make a statement on the matter next week—to the way in which his ministerial colleagues make statements that are directly relevant to the constituency work of hon. Members on both sides of the House without informing those Members? Let me give him an example. A written statement is being made today by the Ministry of Defence. Although the subject that it covers is not immediately apparent, I understand from my local media that they are to be briefed in just a few minutes about its implications for RAF St. Mawgan, which is in my constituency. I had to be briefed by the media to ring the office of the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), to find out what was going on. In the past he has been meticulous in telling me what was happening, but surely it should be the responsibility of Ministers to inform constituency Members of such a matter before informing the local media.
	I understand that the statement will demonstrate that RAF St. Mawgan will be eligible for the stationing of the joint combat aircraft from 2012—that is fine. However, apparently the statement shows that the airfield will effectively be mothballed from 2007 to 2012. That would have a huge impact on my constituency, and the statement may also affect other hon. Members. Why should the local media be informed before constituency Members? Is that not a discourtesy to the House and to Members, and what will the Leader of the House do about it?
	When does the Leader of the House expect the Identity Cards Bill to complete its passage through Parliament? Apparently, it will not come before the House before the Easter recess? Does he expect it to receive Royal Assent before Monday 11 April? Does he accept that it is not urgent, and that there are much more pressing matters that need to be dealt with? Has he had an opportunity to read the extremely important report by the Home Affairs Committee, chaired by his right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), a former Home Office Minister? In particular, has he seen the recommendation about the present practice of including paperwork in police frontline activities? The report says:
	"These tasks may be essential, but they are not what most people would consider street policing. Their inclusion skews the statistics and gives an exaggerated impression of the Government's success in returning police officers to street duties".
	Is that not a more pressing, urgent and important issue in the fight against crime than the Identity Cards Bill?

Peter Hain: May I first deal with the important point about Members of Parliament receiving adequate notice of statements? We always endeavour to inform local Members of Parliament of ministerial statements and decisions affecting their constituencies. If that has not happened in this case I am sorry because, as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to point out, the Ministry of Defence is usually punctilious about such matters. It is an issue that the Secretary of State for Defence will obviously want to take into account.
	On the Identity Cards Bill, we would like it to receive Royal Assent as early as possible. If that is possible before 11 April, that would be very desirable indeed.

Paul Tyler: Ah, 11 April—I will make a diary note.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question. Of course, we would like the Bill to receive Royal Assent by then, but if he wants the legislation to complete its passage on such an early date, it will depend on the co-operation of both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Opposition. The country needs no reminding that the Labour party believes in the sensible, phased introduction of identity cards. We are moving in that direction anyway with passports and driving licences, and virtually everyone has to carry photographic ID to board an internal flight. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will back the measure.
	On police activity on the street, there is widespread concern that there should be more street-level policing and people want to see bobbies on the beat. That is why we have recruited 12,500 extra police officers—the last Conservative Government cut the number of police officers—why we have recruited an extra 4,000 community support officers and why we intend to drive the number of CSOs up to 20,000. All of that would be put at risk by the massive cuts planned by the Conservatives in the Home Office budget.

Anne Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend had time to look at early-day motion 802, which has been signed by 44 right hon. and hon. Members ?
	[That this House is concerned that small UK science and technology businesses are at present significantly disadvantaged compared with their US competitors because of the absence of an effective UK programme to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programme in the US and that the commercial exploitation of the UK science base for the benefit of the UK economy is being jeopardised as a result; further notes that the introduction of such a scheme would be to the benefit both of the UK Government departments commissioning research and development projects and of the companies undertaking them; and urges the Government to introduce legislation similar in effect to the SBIR Program in the US, under which US Federal Government agencies are required by law to spend a minimum proportion of their research and development budgets with small businesses.]
	The early-day motion asks the Government to introduce a scheme similar to the small business innovation research programme in the United States, which requires Government Departments to spend 2.5 per cent. of their research and development budgets on contracts for small businesses and has proved extremely helpful in providing stable and secure funding for early-stage small businesses.

Peter Hain: It is an interesting early-day motion, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to look at it carefully. My hon. Friend has worked carefully and tirelessly in her constituency to support the many small local businesses that are the backbone of the Cambridge economy and, indeed, the whole British economy. The buoyancy of small businesses and the growth of start-ups across Britain have developed on the back of a strong economy and are crucial to future job creation, the success of our economy and the prosperity that that brings.

George Young: Is the Leader of the House planning to introduce any more timetable motions during the weeks ahead? If he is, will he ensure that the House has adequate time to discuss crucial issues? I accept that the Government are entitled to get their business through the House as long as they have a majority, but the amount of time allowed yesterday and previously was absurd. If he intends to continue timetabling Bills, can we at least have adequate time for discussion of them?

Peter Hain: Of course I want adequate time for discussion and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to press me on the matter, as is any other hon. Member. However, the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill will continue today and may continue for a long time if the Conservative-controlled House of Lords—[Interruption.] Yes it is. What the House of Lords is doing down the Corridor is responding to the diktats of the Leader of the Opposition. It is playing politics with our constituents' safety and security. There will be plenty of time to discuss the Bill. The existing measures lapse on Monday, on the instruction of the Law Lords, which is why we need to hurry the legislation through in the interests and security of our voters.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend find early time for a debate on cuts in front-line services in local authorities? My local authority is proposing a council tax rise of 4.6 per cent. and cuts in youth services and social services—that is under a Liberal-Democrat-led, Tory and Nationalist coalition. Should we expect that from a rag, tag and bobtail outfit?

Peter Hain: Well, I am sure that it is. My hon. Friend's electors will soon have the opportunity to see what it is like, having such a coalition in power, to have local services cut compared with its predecessor Labour council which expanded social services week by week, month by month and year by year.

John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House will know that the Paddington health campus is the biggest private finance initiative health project ever. The cost has escalated from £135 million at its launch to £1.1 billion. Will the Secretary of State for Health come to the House at an early date and explain the future of the project? The Times stated on 5 March that this
	"hospital cannot be built at Paddington Basin".
	Is it not only right that the Secretary of State for Health should explain the future of that project when Harefield, Royal Brompton and St. Mary's hospitals are all supposed to be subsumed into it?

Peter Hain: I think that I am right in saying that the tabling for Health questions ends early next week, so the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to try to raise that matter. The Secretary of State for Health will certainly want to give close attention to his point.

Gisela Stuart: Tomorrow morning, I hope to be at Bartley Green technology college to discuss with young students the work of Parliament and MPs as part of its citizenship project. Could my right hon. Friend provide some time to debate the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee, which suggested that the Youth Parliament should use this Chamber for some of its debates?

Peter Hain: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is engaging with young people in citizenship education projects in her constituency because, as the Modernisation Committee recently reported to the House, the gap between our parliamentary democracy and our younger citizens is a big problem. I support the principle of the Youth Parliament using the Chamber or Westminster Hall and I hope that that recommendation may be taken forward.

Nicholas Winterton: I look to the Leader of the House to provide balance in his dual responsibilities in this place. He must know that if not a single Conservative peer had voted in the other place yesterday, the Labour Government would have lost the vote there by 45. To blame that on the Conservatives when many of his colleagues in the other place voted against the Government is an abuse of this House.
	Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the finance Bill resulting from the Budget will have its Second Reading?

Peter Hain: As soon as possible is the answer to that question, and when I am able to provide it with a Second Reading. I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's first point, because he is an experienced parliamentarian and I have a great deal of respect for him. The truth is, however, that in the vote on the sunset clause, which would water down the ability of the Bill to control security and safety, the Government had a majority of more than 100 in this House. I do not think that the House of Lords has the constitutional right continually to overturn decisions of this House, especially when the elected Members here are representing their constituents, whose safety and security must come first. That is the issue that is at stake—whether the Lords overturn us again on the matter or whether we pass into law a Bill that reflects the needs of the police and the security services and the safety and security of all of our citizens.

Tam Dalyell: So in that case why did Lord Condon, Lord Irvine of Lairg and our old friends Bob Sheldon, Joel Barnett and John Morris vote against the Bill? Why should they do such a thing? My right hon. Friend should be a bit more careful. In whole sections of the country, the Bill is not seen as Commons versus Lords, but as particular people in this Government against the Law Lords. Commons against Law Lords is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Peter Hain: May I respectfully say to my hon. Friend that I just do not think that that is the situation. As a result of the arguments that were advanced in the House of Lords, by my hon. Friend and other Labour Members, and by Members on the other side of the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a series of concessions to try to find common ground. He sought to bring judicial supervision and authorisation up front, not only on the derogating orders but on the non-derogating orders; to ensure that Parliament has to renew the legislation every year, otherwise it lapses; that an independent review of how the Bill operates is carried out; and that the judges and the courts are put in pole position. That is why we have listened to the points that have been made. The entirely separate issue that is at stake is whether the House of Lords insists on the sunset clause, which would mean that the whole legislation would disappear in a matter of months. That is the issue—the Conservatives are busy nodding their heads—and it is a different issue from the points that Labour Members and others of independent mind made in the House of Lords and in this Chamber. The Conservatives are inviting Parliament to send a signal to any likely suicide terrorist that this House is wobbly on terrorism and suicide attacks. We cannot possibly do that.

Malcolm Bruce: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 855, on the possibility of creating political prisoners?
	[That this House believes that if the Government persists in seeking legislation that gives to a Minister of the Crown the right to impose detention or control orders on UK residents without the decision being taken in a court on the basis of a trial of evidence then the UK will stand accused of creating political prisoners seriously damaging the reputation of this country's legal system as a beacon to the world.]
	Is not that an issue that should be taken seriously?
	Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry responded to a question from me about reports of plans to privatise the Export Credits Guarantee Department by saying:
	"On the issue of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, I have not seen the reports that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but let me say that there are no plans to privatise that organisation".—[Official Report, 3 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1088.]
	In the Evening Standard on Tuesday, a DTI spokesman said that
	"we are considering whether we can work with private sector partners to deliver some of the Export Control Organisation's services."
	Is not that a clear indication that the Secretary of State either does not know or is not prepared to tell the House what her policy is? Nor did she make any comment on the proposal to extend open licences for defence equipment from two years to 10 years. May we have a debate in which the Secretary of State can explain to us exactly what she is doing on arms control and how that is consistent with the Government's claim that they want to tighten it up?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will certainly study what the hon. Gentleman has said very carefully. However, there is a difference between a Government agency working with the private sector, as many do, and privatisation. They are very different matters.
	Early-day motion 855 refers to the part 4 powers that were ruled to be illegal by the Law Lords. That is why we have had to introduce emergency legislation that will provide judicial control, a regular report back to the House of Commons, an opportunity for review, independent scrutiny and the need for renewal after one year. All the necessary safeguards will be put in place. The most serious provisions on home detention will require a vote of the House of Commons and the House of Lords before they can be proceeded with. All of the legitimate concerns about civil liberties have been addressed, but the paramount necessity is to ensure the security and safety of our citizens, and eliminate or at least closely control the risk of suicide and other terrorist attacks. That is what we are trying to do, and I regret that an unholy coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats seeks to impede the progress of that important legislation, which would be in the interests of all of us, as the police and the security services have said.

Jane Griffiths: We all welcome the publication of the long-awaited Bill on Crossrail. Hon. Members will recall the unseemly demise of a previous incarnation of that Bill in 1996. We have not heard today of any allocation of parliamentary time to make progress on the hybrid Bill. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that time will be found and that the Bill will not recede so far into the future that the opportunity is lost?

Peter Hain: This is an important issue, but my hon. Friend will understand that it is a hybrid Bill and, therefore, it is not possible to rush it through in one Session. It takes several Sessions to get it through. Having made a start with the Bill, we intend to make progress and to secure the Bill, because it is so important.

Eric Pickles: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in requesting an urgent debate on the new guidelines set by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, because it might be able to clear up one issue that is exercising my constituents. Why is Brentwood borough council, alone among councils throughout the country, being asked to provide an official Traveller and Gypsy site when it has but a handful of unauthorised caravans? Adjoining constituencies, represented by Labour Members, have hundreds of unauthorised sites and a history of migration by Travellers and Gypsies. Without an explanation, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will not be able to demonstrate that it has acted objectively or, for that matter, sanely.

Peter Hain: I just do not agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is minded to direct Brentwood to prepare a plan to allocate land to meet demand for Gypsy sites because the council is about to adopt a local plan that makes no such provision, despite the evidence of demand. The issue is whether, in the absence of the necessary controls because of the failures of the last Conservative Government, sites should be allowed to develop in a haphazard and uncontrolled way, or whether proper controls and plans should be put in place. Otherwise, Travellers will move around, creating difficulty and nuisance for local residents. The issue is whether we have proper sites that are properly regulated, controlled and located in order to protect local residents' interests. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister wants to do in Brentwood.

Kevin McNamara: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 298, which has been signed by more than 130 Members and calls for the abolition of the means test for the disabled facilities grant?
	[That this House is extremely concerned about the unfair nature of the Disabled Facilities Grant means test, particularly for families with disabled children; notes that many families who need to make vital adaptations to their home are often forced into massive debt by having to pay for the full cost of adaptations themselves or are unable to carry out the work, leaving their home inaccessible for their child; believes this situation is unacceptable; welcomes the ODPM's current review of the Disabled Families Grant and urges the Government to follow the recent decision to abolish the means test in Northern Ireland; and further believes that such a move would greatly improve the quality of life for many disabled children and their families.]
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the unfair nature of that means test, many hard-working families with disabled children who want to make vital adaptations to their homes are unable to do so without getting into massive debt? Others have to live in homes unsuited to their children's needs. As we have published a paper on improving the life chances of disabled people, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the issue? Perhaps we may look forward to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor making provisions to address that issue in his Budget.
	Finally, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the course of action that he has taken in seeking to settle the problem of sites for Travellers and Gypsies? Is he further aware that we deplore—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend made—or was seeking to make—an important point. On his first question, which was about the disabled facilities grant, the Government have announced an interdepartmental review of the grant programme, which will include analysis of the impact of the means test on different groups of applicants, including the families of disabled children. I hope that he is encouraged to hear that his point will be taken into close account by those undertaking the review.

Patrick McLoughlin: May we have a debate on the use of exaggerated language? Can the Leader of the House explain his referring a few minutes ago to "a Conservative-controlled House of Lords," when the numbers in the Lords are as follows: Conservative 209, Labour 207, Cross Benchers 187, Liberal Democrats 68 and others 36? How can he describe that as a Conservative-controlled House of Lords?

Hon. Members: The Cross Benchers are all Tories!

Peter Hain: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because he provides me with the opportunity to remind him of the remarkable coincidence whereby, when Labour Governments are elected, the number of defeats of Government legislation in the House of Lords increases exponentially, as it has repeatedly done in the past few years. That happens because the Conservatives, the hereditaries—and, indeed, some Cross Benchers who are conservatives with a small "C"—can mobilise a majority to defeat the will of the elected House of Commons. There is a huge Labour majority in the House of Commons, and there is, in effect, a conservative—with both a small and a big "C"—majority in the House of Lords. In the end, democracy should prevail. In the present case, Conservatives in Parliament should put the safety and security of our constituents before opportunism and playing politics.

Laura Moffatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Portcullis House yesterday and today two private health care companies—BUPA and CS Healthcare—have been plying their trade? Will he look into that and tell us whether their desperate attempt to ply their strange trade in the House of Commons is being made because of falling NHS waiting lists?

Peter Hain: I shall certainly look into the matter for my hon. Friend, because I understand her point, although I am not responsible for the event.

James Paice: May I repeat the plea for a proper debate on Traveller policy? The guidelines issued by the Deputy Prime Minister on the requirement for councils to provide sites are not the whole answer to the problem. Throughout the country there are areas such as mine, where although there is a plethora of sites, that does not prevent Travellers from buying other pieces of land, moving on to that land and developing it without any planning controls. There is paralysis between the planning system and the courts, with the result that the Travellers just stay there and no one stops them. Whatever the legal provision of other sites, Travellers are not prevented from developing their own unauthorised sites wherever they can get hold of a piece of land. That is the issue that must be addressed, and the Government have not yet addressed it.

Peter Hain: I respectfully suggest that that is why the hon. Gentleman should support the Deputy Prime Minister's effort to put in place some sort of order and controls, instead of the rather haphazard situation in which Gypsy and Traveller sites are established all over the place. That is what my right hon. Friend is trying to do and, in the light of what he has just said, the hon. Gentleman should give my right hon. Friend his enthusiastic backing.

Clive Betts: Following his earlier comments, will the Leader of the House confirm that he is prepared for the House to sit late this evening—late into the night, if necessary—to get the Prevention of Terrorism Bill passed? I voted against the Government last week because of my concern about the lack of judicial involvement in non-derogated orders, but I now accept that the Home Secretary has gone a long way to meet my concern and that of other hon. Friends. Is not the reality that either we will pass the Bill following the changes proposed by the Home Secretary and accepted by this elected House, or we will end the sitting with no effective anti-terrorism legislation in this country, and face all the risks to national security that that will create?

Peter Hain: That is spot-on. We will sit as late and for as long as it takes to get the legislation through. We will not accept the Conservatives here and in the House of Lords trying to dictate to the Government. Were they in power, they would be taking similar action to deal with the consequences of the Law Lords' ruling last December that the existing powers were not lawful. We have to put something in their place. My hon. Friend says that his legitimate concerns have been met by the concessions that we have made to put judges and the judicial process in pole position. All we have now is an exercise based around a sunset clause—a specious reason to oppose the principles behind the Bill. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

Gregory Campbell: During last week's debate on renewal of the BBC charter, I raised the issue of substantially higher rates of licence fee evasion in certain parts of Northern Ireland. I have tabled early-day motion 810 on the matter:
	[That this House notes that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has indicated in several replies to Parliamentary Questions from the honourable Member for East Londonderry that the information regarding a regional geographic breakdown of those people not in possession of a valid television licence fee is not available; further notes that the limited information which is available indicates that in certain undefined parts of the United Kingdom there is a considerably higher rate of evasion; and calls for a more open strategy to be deployed in order that people across the United Kingdom will know where the highest evasion rates are and will be able to see that the Department is acting accordingly to ensure licence fee payments are made and the law upheld.]
	When can we expect a debate on transparency regarding the identification of areas in which evasion is rife, so that we can establish that the Department has not attempted a cover-up and ensure that the law is upheld?

Peter Hain: We have only just had a debate on the whole subject, and we had the statement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the point, as he is entitled to do, he can table a question to my right hon. Friend.

Julie Morgan: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome the publication last week of the Equality Bill, which will set up the commission for equality and human rights? Is he aware of how much it has been welcomed by various organisations, including the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission, and in Wales? When will Second Reading of that important Bill take place?

Peter Hain: I hope that we can have a Second Reading debate on the Bill which, as my hon. Friend says, is an important measure dealing not only with discrimination against people with disabilities and women, and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or race, but with discrimination on grounds of age or religion. The latter will support the Muslim community, which has felt besieged in recent times. [Interruption.] I hope that the measure will be passed. If Labour is re-elected, the Bill will certainly get Royal Assent as soon as possible—[Interruption]— although I can tell from the unseemly heckling from Conservative Members that if we are not re-elected, they will not see the legislation through.

Gary Streeter: May we have an urgent debate on the practices of the Ministry of Defence in awarding surface ship refit work? The feeling is growing in the west country that dockyards are winning such work based not on a competitive tender, or the best one, but on heavyweight political muscle being applied by some of the right hon. Gentleman's Labour colleagues, especially north of the border. He will understand that that is absolutely unfair and requires urgent investigation and debate.

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's constituency point, which he is advancing quite properly, but he knows that a rigorous assessment process and tendering process are applied to surface ship refit work and other such activity, and I am sure that he is not suggesting that there is any impropriety.

David Chaytor: Millions of parents and students in Britain, including conservatives with a small and a big "C", will appreciate the record investment that the Government have made in Britain's schools and colleges, especially in the past three years. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that in 16-to-19 provision a funding gap remains between schools and colleges. He might know that next Wednesday, the day of the Budget, the Association of Colleges is launching a parliamentary lobby. If in his Budget the Chancellor makes no reference to closing further the funding gap between schools and colleges, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the subject in the near future?

Peter Hain: First, I do think that there are some decent conservatives—and Conservatives—but there are none on the Opposition Benches at present. The better ones have crossed the Floor and joined the Labour party over the past few years. On the important point that my hon. Friend makes, there is indeed a gap between further education funding and school sixth form funding, and it has been too wide. That is why we saw the largest ever investment in further education funding under this Government. It is set to rise by over £1 billion by the coming year, compared with three years ago—a real-terms increase of 60 per cent. compared with 2002–03. I should like to see the further education sector emerge from having been the Cinderella of the education world to being right at the top of the education sector, because it is so crucial for those who get their education under its roof.

Andrew George: The leader of the Liberal Democrats supports the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) in the campaign for an Equality Bill. The Leader of the House will be aware that in November 2004, in response to a question from me regarding the need to reconvene the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs following the failure of the referendum in the north-east, the Deputy Leader of the House said:
	"The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point"—[Official Report, 11 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 935.],
	and went on to say that the Leader of the House would want to consider the matter seriously. Given the unacceptable vacuum that has existed since the beginning of November following the failure of the referendum in the north-east of England, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs is reconvened, and that we have time to debate that important matter?

Peter Hain: I shall bear in mind the reasonable point that the hon. Gentleman makes and look into it. I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats support the Equality Bill. Does that mean that they also support the new offence of religious discrimination, and the new offence in another Bill of incitement to religious hatred? That is crucial to protecting the interests and rights of the Muslim community, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is signalling a change of policy on that matter too.

Helen Clark: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is rising concern and anger among doctors, patients, families and carers about the initial National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendation to deny Alzheimer's disease drugs on the national health service. Will he allocate parliamentary time to debate that devastating and disastrous proposal?

Peter Hain: I assure my hon. Friend that that is draft guidance for consultation, and I am sure that those responsible will take into account the strong feelings that she and others have expressed. It is important that we trust NICE to make an informed and fully considered recommendation on those drugs, which will provide protection for everybody concerned.

Eric Forth: Yesterday, in PMPs—

John Bercow: PMPs?

Eric Forth: Prime Minister's porkies. Yesterday, in PMPs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister had said that the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill could be used against protesters. The Prime Minister then said that he confessed that he had absolutely no recollection of saying that. He went on later to say that he—the Prime Minister—
	"will have to check whatever transcript there is."—[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1509.]
	Can the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister comes to the House as a matter of some urgency with the transcript in his hand, so that we can clarify just what the truth of the matter is? This is yet another case in which the Prime Minister has conveniently forgotten something, dodged the question and denied what he said. Can we please get to the bottom of this? We have had quite enough of these episodes over the past eight years, and it is time we pinned this to the Prime Minister once and for all.

Peter Hain: On the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, the Prime Minister was simply making the point that we all, especially when we are in government, read from time to time in the media reports that bear no resemblance to reality, and he suggested that that was one of them. He was also making the important point that legitimate protest, which I have undertaken regularly in my time, and which I will continue to respect and defend the right of people to do, is in quite a different box from the threat of suicide terrorism, the like of which we saw in Madrid a year ago and which we could see in London or elsewhere in Britain at any time. That is why we are determined to introduce the legislation. That is in an entirely different category from legitimate democratic protest, which has always been an important part of our democracy. By the way, I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman ever going round the streets of Britain to protest about anything.

Chris Bryant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on finding time for a St. David's day debate, and particularly on his cunning plan of delaying it until after the Welsh rugby team has defeated the Scots and the Irish, as well as the French, the English and the Italians. One of the issues that is particularly keenly felt in the Welsh economy is consumer credit, with many families still taking on debts that they cannot afford. Has my right hon. Friend had further conversations with those in the House of Lords to try to make sure that they see the Consumer Credit Bill through its final stages as soon as possible, before a general election?

Peter Hain: Like my hon. Friend's constituents, mine are anxious to see the Consumer Credit Bill receive Royal Assent so that they can be protected from loan sharks and other forms of exploitation—and I am sure that the Welsh day debate will provide an opportunity to celebrate a grand slam by Wales, who will have defeated Scotland and Ireland in the meantime.

John Baron: Will the Leader of the House please make it clear to the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of many Members, that the temporary stop notices brought in by the Government to deal with Travellers who break the law are utterly useless and a shambles? All they do is postpone the problem for 28 days. Thereafter our normal ineffective planning laws kick in. Councils need much stronger powers, as outlined in my Greenbelt Protection Bill, to evict those who break the law and to put right any damage. Otherwise, residents who live close to illegal Traveller encampments, such as Hovefields, Crays Hill and Sadlers Farm in my constituency, and in many other constituencies where this is happening, will continue to be discriminated against while uneven and unfair handling of the situation is allowed to continue.

Peter Hain: I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed. There is a shortage of authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers, alongside a growth in unauthorised development which is causing problems for neighbouring communities and Gypsies and Travellers alike. Local councils need more powers for swift enforcement against development in problem areas, but they also need to do more to identify land for authorised sites. The two go hand in hand. Temporary stop notices provide local planning authorities with an additional enforcement tool to deal with a wide range of planning breaches. I should have thought that in the circumstances and in his own community, the hon. Gentleman would support these tougher measures.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend convey my thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister for the work that his Department has done in relation to "competent persons"? We need to tackle cowboy electricians, the vast majority of whom work illegally in people's homes, in some cases causing death. The competent persons scheme will do that—but the measures taken thus far will not address the bulk of the problem that still exists. I would welcome an opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the competent persons scheme and further steps that we can take to ensure that people are protected from cowboys operating in their communities.

Peter Hain: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for acknowledging that the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to deal with it. I hope she will consider applying for a debate in the usual way, so that the matter can be further explored.

Pete Wishart: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that we should not rush into new legislation on airguns following the tragic and appalling death of toddler Andrew Morton. This morning, I discovered that a further attack took place last night on a fire crew in Tayside and that the use of airguns cannot be ruled out. Regardless of what the Prime Minister said, will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be an early look at the legislation concerning airguns? Does he agree that the most stringent penalties must be given to anybody who attacks our emergency services?

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his latter point. We must closely monitor the unauthorised and malevolent use of airguns, and I am sure that his remarks will be taken into account.

Kevin Brennan: Can we have a debate on the history of human rights in the UK, in order to counter the frequently repeated myth that the measures that the Government are introducing in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill are unique? We should remind the House of the measures that the Conservative Government introduced in the 1970s in conjunction with Stormont, which resulted in 3,500 British citizens being detained without the intervention of a judge, and on the orders of a politician. That sets in clear relief the fact that the Government's proposals that we are considering today are a moderate and proportionate response to a real threat.

Peter Hain: Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point illustrates the rank hypocrisy of Conservative Members.

Adrian Flook: In recent months, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been very busy in my constituency. It forced the unelected regional assembly to ask whether Taunton should have 13,000 houses, and it conducted what it called a "consultation", which involved no more than forcing local councils to take Gypsy and Traveller camps. If the Leader of the House is good enough to grant us a debate on Traveller policy, can we also discuss the sham of Government decentralisation policy?

Peter Hain: The policy is not a sham; it is a commitment to empower local communities wherever possible, and the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced detailed proposals to that effect. On extra housing, the hon. Gentleman knows that demand for housing has increased in Taunton, as well as elsewhere in Britain. Under this Labour Government, communities are doing very well with low mortgages, greater prosperity and more jobs, and the Deputy Prime Minister is meeting the twin imperatives of environmental protection and people's desire for more affordable housing.

Julian Lewis: May we have an urgent statement from a Constitutional Affairs Minister, not about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but about this statement, which was made by a deputy High Court judge two days ago:
	"The postal voting system is open to widespread corruption, because the authorities are powerless to tackle fraud"?
	The Times has discovered that the distinguished local government chief executive and expert returning officer, Max Caller, warned the Government in advance that
	"The current position runs the risk of the whole electoral process being discredited".
	Bearing in mind the fact that in an exchange with me on 10 June the Leader of the House dismissed those very dangers, which have now been confirmed, will he now tell the House of Commons that the Government's policy on postal voting has done a grave disservice to the process of democracy in this country?

Peter Hain: We take the Electoral Commission report very seriously, and Ministers are considering the matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted to remind the House that postal voting is a democratic right for those with disabilities, those who are not at home on voting day, senior citizens who find it difficult to get to the polling station and others who want to vote at ease from the privacy of their own homes, rather than having to go down to the polling station.

Julian Lewis: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, so is it now Conservative policy to deny postal voters the right to apply for postal votes and to vote? [Interruption.] When fraud occurs, which appears to have happened in Birmingham, it must be dealt with and vigorously clamped down on. If the hon. Gentleman were being fair minded, he would concede that those are isolated cases compared with the millions of extra people who had the opportunity to vote last year. Millions of people took advantage of the postal vote with no impropriety or accusations of fraud, and although fraud cases are unacceptable, they are isolated examples against the general trend.

Andrew Selous: I, too, call for an urgent debate on planning policy in relation to Travellers, because my constituency already contains five unauthorised sites. Britain is, rightly, a country tolerant of people who live different lifestyles, but good community relations depend on the law applying equally to all without fear or favour, and currently the discrimination is against the settled community. I recognise that some authorised sites should be provided, but before the Leader of the House blames the wicked old Tories again for this problem, will he recognise that the supply of authorised sites will never match demand, given that many Travellers come to this country from overseas?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made some reasonable points, which is why the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced stop notices and is seeking to deal with the problem. He and other hon. Members from both sides of the House should work with the Deputy Prime Minister to try to resolve that nationwide problem. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the Deputy Prime Minister some credit for acting decisively and seeking to impose control and order where there has been none.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In contradistinction to the Leader of the House's rant about democratic opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in the other place—opposition that includes a majority of Labour peers—the Leader of the House has made a great deal of the safeguard provided by a vote of both Houses to the renewal orders in the Bill. Will he confirm that the safeguard will entail a statutory instrument, which cannot be amended, can be debated for only an hour and a half, and will be taken in Committee, where relatively few hon. Members can participate? Is that really a safeguard? A better safeguard would be to introduce an entirely new Bill with enough time for proper parliamentary scrutiny and with the support of all parts of this country, including the judiciary.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made his point reasonably, so he will not get a rant in return. The problem is that the existing legislation, which the Law Lords have deemed unlawful, expires on Monday. What should we put in its place? The security services and the police have told us that they believe that the legislation that has been ruled unlawful acted as a powerful deterrent. They have told the Government, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and me, in my capacity as Leader of the House of Commons, that that legislation effectively put up a notice to would-be suicide terrorists that Britain is not a soft touch. We cannot continue to use that legislation so we must replace it, and that is what we are seeking to do. All Conservatives, wherever they are in Parliament, should respect the safety and security of our citizens and support the Government, as we would have done in opposition, and they have shown rank hypocrisy in failing to do so.

John Bercow: May I reiterate the call made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) for the Second Reading of the Equality Bill to take place? The Leader of the House can readily find support for that Bill on both sides of the House, because it will establish a commission on equality and human rights, outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods and services and give public authorities a duty to promote equality of opportunity for all our citizens. Will he accept that after all the extensive consultation on that important matter, there is no good reason to delay any longer? The argument for holding the Second Reading either next week or the week after is overwhelming.

Peter Hain: I have announced the business for next week and the week after, which is dominated by the Budget, but we want to proceed with the Equality Bill as quickly as we can. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and I am sure that he is equally grateful that we have found time for a debate on Africa, which he and the shadow Leader of the House have asked me about.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Support For Members Who Have Chosen Not To Take Their Seats

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected amendments (a) and (b), and both can be referred to during the debate. Mr. Speaker has also imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That for a period of suspension of one year commencing on 1st April 2005 the Resolution of the House of 18 December 2001 relating to Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in proceedings in Parliament shall not have effect in so far as it provides for their claiming support for their costs under the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance etc., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.
	The motion stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It relates to the allowances paid to Members of this House who choose not to take up their seats and provides that payment of these should be suspended for 12 months. The Government propose this change in recognition of the concern felt on both sides of the House about the involvement of the Provisional IRA in the Northern bank robbery that took place just before Christmas.
	I will not reiterate the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he reported to the House the conclusion reached by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland that the Provisional IRA had been behind the Northern bank robbery. Nor will I list the other crimes that the Independent Monitoring Commission concluded had been the work of that same organisation. The House is well aware of the issues. It is clear that this organisation continues to engage in serious criminality and that this criminality has grave implications for our attempts to restore sufficient trust to enable a power-sharing Government to be restored in Northern Ireland.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced this measure in the light of the Northern bank robbery. Does he think that the same rule should now apply given Sinn Fein's disgraceful behaviour this week in suggesting that it might shoot people who carried out murder in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in condemning outright that extraordinary and abhorrent statement, which is a dreadful stain on everybody concerned with Northern Ireland. That underlines the importance of this motion.

Patrick Cormack: In view of what the Leader of the House just said—I agree with every word of it—how can he possibly defend rules that would still allow, even after the passing of this motion, terrorist sympathisers and supporters to come to this House and to have facilities within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster?

Peter Hain: Let me remind the House that until 1997 there was no bar on Members who had not taken the Oath entering the precincts and having access to facilities and services. I can see no logic in the Conservatives' suggestion that we should bar Sinn Fein Members from the Palace of Westminster now, given that not once during their 18 years in government did they attempt to withdraw the right of access from Sinn Fein. Long before the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday agreement, Gerry Adams, as an elected Member, was allowed the right to enter the precincts and to use the services of the House. We are now in a different situation, since the Good Friday agreement, whereby Sinn Fein has been signed up, in name at least, to a peaceful and democratic path. That is the difference.

Oliver Heald: Surely the Leader of the House will acknowledge that up until 1997 Sinn Fein Members stood on a clear platform of abstention and said that they would not come here. The problem arose when they changed their policy in 1997 and said that they wanted to come here but not to take their seats.

Peter Hain: They have not changed their policy of refusing to take their seats in the House. In managing this difficult situation, which I hope the whole House will want to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in doing, we have to bear in mind the duties of the House and my duties as Leader of the House, as well as the necessity to try to deal with criminality and the equal necessity to take every opportunity to lock in all the political forces in Northern Ireland on a democratic path.

David Trimble: I appreciate that careful distinctions have to be drawn here, and it is sometimes difficult to do so, but I think that the Leader of the House was mistaken when he said that all that needed to be done was to remove the money to which the persons returned to serve in the House who had not taken the Oath had access. That is not entirely accurate. Yes, they could have come into the House, although they did not have offices assigned to them. However, they have access on those terms to offices and, indeed, to facilities that a member of the public would not have. The position for people who had not taken the Oath was that they could enter in the same way as a member of the public, but the resolution that has been mentioned gave them additional access and offices. The Leader of the House may not have appreciated those distinctions and may now want to revisit them.

Peter Hain: I shall explain why the Government are adopting this position instead of seeking to bar access entirely. This a very serious motion. It will deprive Sinn Fein MPs of £439,542, on the last recorded figures. That is a considerable amount of money that was being claimed and used for staffing allowances, additional costs allowances, incidental expenses provision and travel by Members and staff. This is a very serious decision, and I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would support the Government in taking it forward.

David Winnick: I support the motion. At a British-Irish parliamentary body meeting earlier this week, there was very strong condemnation of the IRA, not least from Irish Deputies, one after another of whom bitterly criticised the criminality in the organisation and its betrayal of the Good Friday agreement. In supporting the motion, is it not important to recognise that Sinn Fein was elected with the electorate voting for it in the knowledge that Sinn Fein MPs would not take their seats in the House of Commons? We must be very careful, now and in future, not to give Sinn Fein Members any idea of being martyrs and playing to their electorate along those lines.

Peter Hain: If I may say so, those are wise words of advice for the House. There is a careful balance to be struck, and it is important that we do so, notwithstanding the individual points of view that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House may have. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is well respected in that role, has made the judgment—and I fully support him—that we should withdraw these privileges, but at the same time we should allow elected Members of Parliament to serve their own constituents. As I shall explain, that is precisely what our decision and motion are designed to do.

Jeremy Corbyn: I listened with care to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). Does he accept that the support allowances paid to Sinn Fein MPs are in order for them to represent the constituents who elected them? Are we not on the rather dangerous ground of denying facilities for those people to be represented in a parliamentary way by their MPs, whether they take their seats or not?

Peter Hain: That is precisely the balance to be struck. My hon. Friend again asserts the primacy of elected Members of Parliament in being able to represent their constituents and the right of those constituents to have their views represented. That is why, under this decision, they will not be barred from access to the House. They and their staff will still be able to use the offices, free post, and telephone facilities, and have access to the Library and to catering, in order to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents, some of whom may have elected them and some of whom may have voted for other parties. I am trying to advance a parliamentary point here.

Ian Paisley: It is nice that a voice from Northern Ireland who represents a majority of Unionists can finally be heard. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) was not even here at the beginning of the debate, but I have been sitting here since the House commenced.
	Is it not strange that the Leader of the House's reason for doing this, which he is explaining from the Dispatch Box, is not mentioned in his motion? The only description of these people is that they did not take their seats. Are the Government afraid of naming these people and the crime that they committed, which has been verified by the Independent Monitoring Commission? A commission that the Government set up found this out and exposed it. Why is not that mentioned in the motion?

Peter Hain: It is not for me, as Leader of the House of Commons, to name the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. It is a matter for the police, who are mounting an investigation in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Government, takes a close interest.
	I must now make progress because many hon. Members wish to speak and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reply fully to the debate.
	Hon. Members will recall that the Independent Monitoring Commission made clear in its report that, had it been reporting when the Assembly was sitting, it would have recommended the exclusion of Sinn Fein Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive. In the absence of an Assembly, the commission's power to make recommendations is more limited and it therefore recommended that the Secretary of State should consider taking financial measures against Sinn Fein in the context of the suspended Assembly. My right hon. Friend has made clear his intention to do just that.
	The House will, in due course, have the opportunity to debate that issue further in the context of a direction made by my right hon. Friend to suspend the payment of Northern Ireland party grants for a further 12 months. The commission also mentioned in its report other public money paid to Sinn Fein. Although it was outside the commission's scope to make recommendations about that, its comments have nevertheless led the Government to conclude that it was right that the House should have the opportunity to consider imposing a similar restriction on allowances paid to Sinn Fein Members of this House.
	The motion before us today is an expression of the House's profound disapproval of the activities of the Provisional IRA and the responsibility that Sinn Fein shares for those activities in the estimation—that is the important point—of the Independent Monitoring Commission. However, the motion also takes account of the fundamental right of citizens in constituencies that have returned Sinn Fein Members to be represented.

Robert Walter: The Leader of the House mentioned the sanctions to be taken against Sinn Fein as a party. He knows that, when the House passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we made an exception for Northern Ireland political parties on accountability and foreign funding on the ground that some were all-Ireland parties. We had Sinn Fein in mind at the time. The regulations in the Republic have now changed and parties there are accountable. Will the Government therefore consider repealing the relevant provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act?

Peter Hain: The House has just renewed the measure, but the Government are in discussion with the Republic of Ireland Government and we will continue to monitor the position.
	The balance involved is difficult to strike and it gives me no pleasure to bring forward the motion because I believe that every Member elected to this House should take his or her seat in the Chamber. Not to do so is a denial of the representation that their constituents have a right to expect, whether those constituents voted for the elected Member or not—indeed, whether they voted at all. That is important. Those in the constituencies of the four affected Members, even those who did not vote Sinn Fein, have a right to normal parliamentary representation. That is why we are taking away the £430,000-odd but leaving in place those Members' right to help their constituents through the facilities of the House.
	Although we all acknowledge the political position of Irish republicanism, the Government believe that Sinn Fein Members should take their seats and participate fully in the democratic process, partly because we want them to be committed to exclusively democratic means and partly because their constituents have a simple right to that representation.
	When the House voted in 2001 to grant allowances to Members who chose not to take their seats, it did that in recognition of the importance of those Members' fulfilling their duty to constituents. It is important and fair to say that the House was also mindful of the progress along the path to democracy made by Sinn Fein at that time. We all want continuously to encourage that progress and the motion is designed to do that.
	It is the view of the British and Irish Governments and of international opinion that the progress has faltered and slipped backwards because of the activities of the Provisional IRA. That is what has changed since the House made its decision in 2001. However, neither the duty of Sinn Fein Members to their constituents nor those constituents' rights have changed, which is why I believe that the motion achieves the right balance.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Leader of the House mentioned international opinion. Is he aware of an opinion poll that the Belfast Telegraph published today? It gives the Democratic Unionist party 28 per cent. and Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party 20 per cent., with the Ulster Unionist party down on 16 per cent. That marks a significant decline in popular support for Sinn Fein-IRA from 26.3 per cent. in the European elections—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is wide of the scope of the debate.

Peter Hain: I did not see the opinion poll, but I should think that the hon. Gentleman, as a representative from Northern Ireland, wants Sinn Fein and the important constituency that it represents, whatever its rating in the polls, to be involved in and committed to the political democratic process. That is in the interests of us all.

Patrick Cormack: Surely it is the duty of those elected to the House to serve in it. Those who decline to fulfil their democratic duties do not deserve the sort of support that they will continue to have even after the motion has been passed.

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but several factors must be carefully balanced. First, the four Members are elected just as he is and just as I am. Their constituents have a right to representation just as his do. He represents them well and I try to do that for my constituents. We are imposing an important sanction—withdrawing nearly £440,000-worth of expenses, which help those Members to represent their constituents. However, access to the House's facilities remains to enable them to perform their duties.

Harry Barnes: Is not one of the problems that Gerry Adams and his colleagues have never made sufficient use of the opportunity to visit the House and enable the rest of us, who disagree with many of their positions, to contact them, nobble them and press differing views? They took the money and ran. There is therefore a case for removing the money, although the argument about the facilities for serving constituents—that does not always have to be done by them but could be done by people whom they appoint—is pertinent.

Peter Hain: I understand that point, but my hon. Friend will understand the republican view on whether Members should take their seats in a United Kingdom Parliament, although we disagree with it. In the past few years, as a result of Government decisions and the leadership that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown, there has been, until recently, increasing political mainstreaming of Sinn Fein in the democratic process. It is important not to lose sight of the opportunity to re-engage with that.
	I know that some will argue that we should go further than today's motion and deny Sinn Fein the use of facilities in the Palace of Westminster—indeed, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and others have done that. However much we may disapprove of the activities of Sinn Fein, and however much we disapprove of the recent criminality of especially the Provisional IRA, the Government's view is that we should not give the appearance of denying the rights of the electorate. Whether we like it or not, that is how a decision to deny them access to their offices would be perceived.
	I also believe that a decision to deny Sinn Fein access to facilities here would put the House out of step with the devolved institutions that many Members have tried so hard to construct and sustain in Northern Ireland. The Government have signalled their intention to renew the financial penalties imposed on Sinn Fein in the suspended Northern Ireland Assembly, but all Members of the Legislative Assembly continue to have access to the building and its facilities, and neither Unionist nor nationalist parties have suggested that that should be withdrawn.
	For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to reject amendment (b). I also urge the House to reject amendment (a). I can understand the argument for simply withdrawing the allowances and considering at a later date whether they should be reinstated, but the Government believe that imposing a suspension of one year sends a better message and a clear time frame, thus encouraging the republican movement to put its house in order rather than rejecting its Members from Westminster.

Patrick Cormack: A sunset clause.

Peter Hain: No, actually, it is not a sunset clause in the sense that the Conservatives propose for the terrorism Bill, because that Bill would die with their sunset clause. It is much more akin to the Government's proposal to renew the order at the end of the year.
	We will, of course, consider an extension to the suspension if circumstances do not change. That is an important point, which I want to underline and repeat: we will consider an extension to the suspension if circumstances do not change.

David Trimble: I tried to intervene earlier when the Leader of the House was drawing a distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA in relation to his reference to the activities of Sinn Fein and, subsequently, to the criminality of the IRA. Will he take into account what the Independent Monitoring Commission said, in that it made clear that the criminal activities of republicans were known and approved by leading members of Sinn Fein? The distinction that he draws is therefore not upheld by the IMC, which is quite clear that leading Sinn Fein members knew and approved of the Northern bank raid. He is therefore wrong to draw the distinction, and that is highly important in relation to his point about Sinn Fein Members as persons who are elected as if they were normal politicians. That point has been lost.

Peter Hain: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but as the Leader of the House of Commons I have a responsibility, with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to take a balanced view and to assert the principles of the House while bearing in mind the need for further progress to cement in the peace settlement.

Kate Hoey: I am disappointed that the Leader of the House will not accept amendment (a). Can he tell the House what criteria will be used to judge whether these allowances will automatically be given back next year? Will a criterion be whether there is a move in the peace process, so called? How will he judge it? Alternatively, will it just be an automatic one-year suspension? It is important that we know what will determine whether this money is given back next year.

Peter Hain: First, we will want to take advice from the Independent Monitoring Commission. That is crucial. I am sure that my hon. Friend would regard verified evidence of an end to criminality, a commitment to an intensification of the peace process and an absolute commitment to the democratic process as reasonable.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend and others who have properly pressed me on this matter will also understand that we are light years away from where we were. Last year, four people were killed as a result of terrorist activity. In the bad old days, 497 people were killed. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is now lower than it has been for 30 years. More tourists are going to Northern Ireland than there are residents there. The situation has been transformed. What we need to do, in part by keeping Sinn Fein in the democratic process and the whole republican movement committed to it, and in part by continuously seeking to work to achieve that, is to create a new future for Northern Ireland in which peace, stability and economic prosperity will be locked in for good.

David Winnick: Is there not a danger of losing the wider picture? While the IRA can claim that it was never defeated militarily, politically, it and Sinn Fein were defeated. Northern Ireland is as much part of the United Kingdom—of course, that is the wish of the majority—as it was before the IRA started its war of terror. Would not it be wise to recognise that, if anything, the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom has been strengthened by the Good Friday agreement and the right of consent that is recognised as such?

Peter Hain: I would prefer to put it in a different way: the Good Friday agreement has locked in bitter opponents of the Union with those most fervent supporters of the Union in a common democratic endeavour in Northern Ireland. That is the prize as a result of the leadership that has been given by the Prime Minister, and we must continuously seek to regain that prize and make sure that it is fully implemented and cemented in.
	In a place that cherishes the fundamental principles of democracy, it is deeply dispiriting to have to impose penalties on Members who have not lived up to those principles, but I believe that this motion is a just and proportionate response. By withdrawing public subsidy for Sinn Fein Members, it underscores the disapproval of all true democrats for what has happened. I commend it to the House.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'for a period of suspension of one year commencing on' and insert the words 'as from', instead thereof.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss amendment (b), in line 5, leave out from 'effect' to end.

Oliver Heald: This debate is a direct result of the refusal by Sinn Fein-IRA to end all forms of paramilitary and criminal activity. Seven years after the Belfast agreement, they have still to commit themselves fully to what that agreement calls
	"exclusively democratic and peaceful means".
	That is why we have had no devolution in Northern Ireland since October 2002. It is why the Government have brought forward this motion today.
	Last year, Sinn Fein Members claimed almost £500,000. They did not speak here, question Ministers, vote or table written questions on behalf of their constituents. Since the beginning of 2002, they have been able to use the facilities of the Commons that are available to right hon. and hon. Members who take their seats and do the job.

Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House misunderstood the intervention that I made earlier. I was supporting the Government's position, which is quite unusual for me at the moment. My argument is that not only do Sinn Fein Members not do many of the things that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but they do not attend the Building so that the rest of us can have access to and discussions with them. I have talked to all leaders of Northern Ireland political parties, but only once in a great number of years of being interested in Northern Ireland have I had an opportunity to have a private conversation with Gerry Adams. That particular avenue led to some benefit.
	The Sinn Fein Members should have been here. They have not made use of that opportunity, so it should now be removed from them.

Oliver Heald: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Sinn Fein Members have not lived up to their democratic responsibilities. In effect, we are granting them rent-free, taxpayer-funded, fully-staffed offices, which seem to be used for propaganda purposes.
	The original motion put forward by the Government was always unacceptable to my party and to many others in the House. We have two objections: the first is on the issue of principle; the second is on whether the tactical concession was ever really right. The official Opposition have always believed that it is simply wrong to allow Members who refuse to take their seats to enjoy the same rights as Members who do. We echo the views of the then Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, who said:
	"I feel certain that those who choose not to take their seats should not have access to the many benefits and facilities that are now available in the House without also taking up their responsibilities as Members.—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 35.]
	Later that year, she met the Sinn Fein MPs and upheld her decision. She said:
	"I pointed out that my decision does not discriminate against Sinn Fein: it applies equally to any Members not taking their seats for any reason. Those who do not take up their democratic responsibilities cannot have access to the facilities at Westminster that are made available to assist Members".—[Official Report, 4 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 487.]

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Members who have been elected have a duty to represent their constituents? The Sinn Fein Members always made it clear that they would not take their seats here, as they do not believe that the British Parliament should ultimately have jurisdiction, I suppose. They seek to represent their constituents at a local level, however, through letters and so on. By taking away the funding, we are punishing their constituents. The message to their constituents is that we are not prepared to provide the financial wherewithal to employ staff to undertake the work that we all employ staff to undertake on behalf of our constituents.

Oliver Heald: May I put an alternative view to the hon. Gentleman? He and I agree about hardly anything politically, but he would take up a constituent's case with Ministers and in correspondence, and he would take up issues with public authorities. The point is, though, that if he is not satisfied, he will take up the matter here. He will question a Minister, table written questions and speak in debates. He uses his unique privilege—for it is both a legal and a parliamentary privilege—to stand up for his constituents. The truth is that a Member of Parliament cannot be effective unless he does that.
	We do not believe in associate status. We do not believe that there is such a thing as an associate Member of Parliament—a second-class Member of Parliament. If a Member is elected, his democratic responsibility is to take his seat and do the job that he was elected to do.

Robert Walter: It was suggested a moment ago that this was some form of punishment, and the word "sanction" has been used. Privileges and benefits above and beyond the rights of Members who do not take their seats were granted to these Members. Surely it is wrong to call this a punishment; we are simply withdrawing a benefit.

Oliver Heald: I thank my hon. Friend for expressing that view. I am rather worried about the idea of using the way in which the House arranges its allowances and office facilities as a Government sanction that can be used either to punish Members or to reward them in some way. That should really be a matter for the House. I am glad that the Leader of the House is in charge of today's debate, but—I do not know whether other Members agree with this—I feel that, in respect of our facilities and the terms on which we are Members of Parliament, we should all be equal in this place. The essential fact is that these benefits and facilities are available to those who are elected and then take their seats.

Desmond Swayne: Is not the essential fact that these alleged Members do not regard themselves as Members of Parliament? They are fantasists. They consider themselves to be the legitimate Government of the whole of Ireland. That is the problem.

Oliver Heald: As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point in his own inimitable way.

John Gummer: Is not the real issue that if people who happen to espouse—quite mistakenly, in my view—the concept that the structure that we have is entirely unacceptable manage to attract the majority of the votes in a democratic election, we must accept that that election has taken place? The question with which we must deal is how we can represent that fact, while not providing large sums of money for all sorts of other activities. I was against giving these people the money in the first place, but it seems to me that there must be some kind of recognition that the electors—mistakenly, foolishly, stupidly and sometimes criminally—elected them. There is a median line to be found, and the House must try to find it.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We should also bear in mind that at the time when the elections took place in 2001—the House's decision was made shortly after that—the atmosphere seemed to be one of encouragement. Since then—I am sure that this applies to electors in Northern Ireland as well as those of us who are present today—we have observed something that is, as the Leader of the House said, rather dispiriting. Over the past three years, at the same time as claiming taxpayers' money here, Sinn Fein has remained linked to an armed and active terrorist organisation, the Provisional IRA. Those are not just my words. The Republic's Defence Minister, Mr. Willie O'Dea, went much further. The British Government often use the words "inextricably linked"; he said:
	"We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are indivisible".
	We have no reason to disagree with that.
	The Justice Minister in the Republic, Mr. McDowell, has named three senior members of Sinn Fein—including two Members of the House of Commons—as also being senior figures on the IRA's so-called army council. I am not in a position to dispute that either. We have ample evidence of the extent to which the IRA controls a vast criminal empire to finance its operations. We now know that at the same time as members of Sinn Fein were involved in negotiations that could have led to their being Ministers in the Government in Northern Ireland, the IRA was planning the biggest bank raid in British history.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that yesterday's newspapers quoted the head of the police in Northern Ireland as saying that he agreed that the two Members of the House of Commons were members of the IRA's army council.

Oliver Heald: That builds on the point that I have made.

Patrick Cormack: Is not the nub of the issue the fact that these people are associated with, and have probably been involved in, criminal and terrorist activities? Is it not rather paradoxical that later today we shall impose control orders on those who are probably not terrorists, while giving all the privileges of the House to those who probably are?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. Moreover, whereas in the context of those orders we are asking for a sunset clause and being told how unreasonable that is and how such a clause would weaken the legislation, in this instance the Minister is introducing one.

Peter Hain: It is not a sunset clause.

Oliver Heald: It is a sunset clause—[Interruption.] The Minister is saying something sotto voce, but it is exactly that.
	According to the Irish Prime Minister, the bank raid would have been known about at the highest level of Sinn Fein. As one former senior member of the IRA said yesterday, if that were not the case it would be like Britain going to war with Iraq without the Prime Minister knowing.
	The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Hugh Orde, is in no doubt about where the responsibility for the bank robbery lies; nor is his counterpart in the Republic, the Garda commissioner Mr. Conroy. In blaming the IRA for the Northern bank robbery and a number of other recent robberies in Northern Ireland, the Independent Monitoring Commission was emphatic:
	"In our view Sinn Fein must bear its share of responsibility for all the incidents. Some of its senior members, who are also . . . members of PIRA, were involved in sanctioning the series of robberies."
	Since then, we have seen evidence of money laundering, in addition to the intimidation, beatings, shootings and murders that continue in nationalist areas. That was illustrated recently by the brutal murder of Robert McCartney by members of the IRA following a row in a Belfast bar.
	I, for one, pay tribute to the family and friends of Mr. McCartney for their courage in standing up to the IRA in their efforts to secure justice, and I join those who have expressed their utter disgust at the IRA's offer to shoot those whom they deem responsible. How that contrasts with the dignity of the family who want to see the guilty men brought to court and subjected to due process!
	As the McCartney family have said, they want justice, not revenge. They want people to go to the police, not engage in the law of the wild west. Yet even today, despite the warm words of Sinn Fein, we learn that the family still believe that witnesses are being intimidated. Last week, Sinn Fein announced that it was expelling seven members in connection with that incident. What normal political party has to expel a group of its members for involvement in murder?

Jeremy Corbyn: Obviously, the killing was atrocious and appalling, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that at last week's Sinn Fein conference the Sinn Fein leadership made it very clear that people should come forward and go to the police so that the due process of law could take place?

Oliver Heald: I know from past debates with the hon. Gentleman that he reads The Guardian. He should read its front page today.
	In the light of all that, we welcome the Government's decision to take action against Sinn Fein Members. We opposed the original decision to grant these concessions in December 2001, and we argued for its reversal following the suspension of the Assembly and Executive in October 2002.
	In our view, however, the motion does not go far enough. We do not believe that the suspension should be time limited to only 12 months. What is the justification for that? We take the view that Sinn Fein Members should lose access to all, not just some, of the facilities at Westminster that the Government granted to them in December 2001. Amendment (a) would remove the sunset clause and make the removal of facilities and allowances permanent; amendment (b) includes reference to the office and other facilities as well as the allowances.
	In justifying the decision of December 2001, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the then Leader of the House, was adamant that the concessions were justified by progress made in the peace process. Today we can see that, because of Sinn Fein-IRA, there has been no devolution for two and a half years and there has been a succession of breaches of the agreement and the ceasefire. On the Government's own logic, we should be reversing the changes that were brought about in December 2001.

David Winnick: I would be opposed to Sinn Fein, even if the organisation were not so closely linked with the IRA. I consider it a totalitarian organisation, and heaven forbid if it were ever to rule in Ireland. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a danger, particularly when Sinn Fein is rightly on the defensive over the brutal murder of Robert McCartney, of giving the organisation a sort of martyr status? It makes it easier for Sinn Fein Members to portray themselves to the electors of Northern Ireland as having been penalised by British parliamentarians and all the rest of it. In that light, is not the Leader of the House achieving the right balance in the motion?

Oliver Heald: It is certainly important to strike the right balance, but I believe that amendments (a) and (b) are required in order to send out the right message. Since the general election of 2001 and the time when the changes were made, we have not seen the full commitment that we expected to see from Sinn Fein-IRA, but experienced the problems that I have already outlined. In those circumstances, simply saying that some of the allowances will be removed for a short period is not the firm response that we would expect from the House. If we were to accept the amendments to the motion, it would highlight for the benefit of Northern Ireland voters what the House thinks about the response to the concessions that were made in the 2001 resolution.

John Gummer: Is not one of the main problems the fact that the Government have not named the organisation that we are talking about? Is not the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) right that it would be much better if we said that we are making these changes in response to the actions of Sinn Fein-IRA? I believe that it would be much easier if we did that. Because we are not saying that, we have to deal with a very difficult lacuna. What do we do about people who do not want to come to the House for reasons that might, at some future time, be acceptable? I cannot think of an occasion at the moment, but some people have taken that view in the past. Should we not have pressed for the motion to be viewed as a specific response to what Sinn Fein-IRA has done?

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. There are two points here. First, all Members should be treated equally, and they are—or they were—in the sense that elected Members who take their seats receive the benefits and those who do not take their seats do not get the benefits. That is why we opposed the original resolution in 2001, which we felt was creating two classes of Members. My right hon. Friend's suggestion would interfere with the principle that we want to maintain—that all Members are to be treated in the same way. Secondly, however, there is a strong case for a clear condemnation of the way in which Sinn Fein-IRA has behaved. I certainly agree with all the Members who have made that point. We have been very clear about that at all stages of the proceedings.

Lembit �pik: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, it is a matter of principle for him that those who are either unable or choose not to take their seats in the House should not have office access. I presume that if it really is a matter of principle for him, those who are suspended from the House should also be denied access to their offices. [Hon. Members: They are.] Is my understanding of his position correct?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman may not realise it, but that is already the case. It is right that Members who take up their seats in this place should have all the facilities available to them, but it is a different matter if a Member is disciplined by the House.
	I urge all right hon. and hon. Members who care about the traditions of the House and who are committed to peaceful and democratic politics in these islands to support the amendments.

Seamus Mallon: I want to make my position on this matter as clear as I did at the last Northern Ireland questionsI am not in favour of the motion. I have never been in favour of it for a number of reasons that I hope to explain. I am not going to vote in favour of it today. I come from a long tradition in relation to where I live and also to my family, which recognised the refusal to take or affirm an oath of allegiance as part of the nationalist or republican tradition. That is something that goes way back into Irish history and it runs very deeply in people that come from that tradition.
	I immediately recognise two sets of principles, which have already been enunciated. It is an absolutely legitimate principle to say that anyone in this House or any democratic forum should have equality and that there should be only one set of rules by which people abide. I recognise that principle and I respect it as absolutely legitimate.
	I am also aware of the other principle, as I have already mentioned. There is a curious pristine legitimacy about it. However, I see no pristine legitimacy in justifying a set of actions on the basis of principle, while saying, Those are my principles; I am not breaking them; but, by the way, can I have the money on the side? In many ways, that is what is happening here. The nationalist-republican tradition is the principle on which some Members justify not attending Parliament, yet that principle does not seem to get in the way of the allowances or advantagesfinancial and otherwisethat stem from Parliament.
	It is difficult to have respect for a principled positionthe shadow Leader of the House touched on itwhen that principled position, in terms of its own definition, contaminates itself by having a hand out sideways for the money, while the principle is maintained in public. That is one of the reasons why I look upon the matter with a jaundiced eye.
	There will be a lot of righteous indignation about the motion before the House. I recognise and respect that, but there will probably be little recognition of what lies at the heart of the issuea disrespect for the institutions of Parliament shown by those who will take the money, but not come to put their case on the Floor of the House. People may have different political persuasions, but they must not disrespect our political institutions. In the Northern Ireland arrangement, that disrespect means that there can be little respect between political adversaries.
	I want to make several minor points. We all know the value of publicity in the run-up to a general election. How much publicity could the Labour, Conservative, Democratic Unionist, Ulster Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour parties buy for 400,000? Could they buy as much as has been secured today, in this debate, by the party at which the motion is aimed? In my view, they most certainly could not. That party will milk today's debate, making it another grievance to add the list. It seems to thrive on the grievance culture, in which this motion will become another element. Every statement and interview by that party is permeated by a sense of victimhood, and many people will consider the unprincipled decision in this matter to have been taken by this House. For that reason, too, I regard the motion with a jaundiced eye.
	Secondly, I want to look beyond today's debate. I do not want to talk about bank raids or recent murders or developments in Northern Ireland. The motion is part of the process by which negotiations are progressed through deals on the side. I do not accept that a shaft of light struck the Government, individually or collectivelybut including the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Northern Irelandand that as a result they decided to propose this motion. That decision was made in negotiations with a political party, as a side deal to the other negotiations in hand at the time.
	When was the issue discussed with the Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour parties? It was never discussed, as it belongs in the category of side deals. It is part of the goodies and sweeteners used to get and keep people on board. What effect does such a deal have on the real negotiations about very serious issues, or on the future? What will be its effect on those parties that negotiate in good faith? The harsh reality is that negotiations on Northern Ireland over the past seven years could provide a template, usable by any country in the world, for resolving conflicts by removing all the middle ground. Until the fault line in the negotiating process is recognised, the difficulties will continue and increase.
	I was interested to hear various hon. Members say that the political process and mandate required that the party at which the motion is aimed has some presence at Westminster. I am one of those who have fought elections in which men with guns have stood at the polling station door, telling people that they could not, and should not, vote. I have had the same guns thrust in my face and put to my head, and been told that it was disloyal of me to seek a mandate in an election, regardless of whether that election was for Westminster or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some people may consider such a mandate sacrosanct; my approach is different.
	As I said, two sets of principles are at work. One is demeaned by the very people who pretend and maintain that they uphold it, but do today's debate and the crucible that is the recent past show that there is a need to re-examine the process of negotiation? There is a huge difference between the process of negotiation and its subject. The Good Friday agreement is the basis for the future, but the process of negotiation has served only to diminish its chances of success.
	I have one final question, which I cannot answer. Like many other hon. Members, I will not be in the House when it is answered. The motion will be reconsidered in a year: what will happen then, if the money is still required by those who claim to uphold the principle on which the motion is based? What line will the Government of the day take? What will be the criteria governing the reintroduction of the provisions? Will they remain unchanged? Will they be reintroduced in a different form? Will Parliament say that a principle is involved and that it will stick to it?
	In many ways, the debate will retain an element of schizophrenia. Beyond a certain point, the Government's position lacks logic. The same is true of my position, or of the position espoused by many of the people involved, and that is because the motion is based on an inherent illogicality. The feelings aroused are deep and legitimate

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Lembit �pik: Given that there will be a free vote on the motion, my guidance to my party colleagues is that they should support the motion and resist amendments (a) and (b).
	In the aftermath of the Northern bank robbery in Belfast, I have been frustrated to the point of anger on a number of occasions by the fact that so little of the proof, evidence or intelligence that the Government claim to possess has been made available to Opposition politicians. The Government say that that information has led them to believe that the IRA was responsible for the crime, but they have been determined to keep everyone else in the dark, even though other parties have expressed a genuine and ongoing commitment to the peace process.
	Neither I nor any other member of my party has ever said that the IRA is innocent, but we have said that the Government must reciprocate our good faith by showing us the evidence for their claims. I am glad to say that the Government responded recently to my request for more information. It is available only on Privy Council terms, through the office of my party leader, but I am grateful nevertheless. I hope that complaints or objections lodged here or in the press will not be necessary for Ministers to include us in the information loop in the future. But let us not be churlish. People from both sides have learned something from that and I am grateful for the dialogues that we have had since then.

Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is now creating two classes of Members: those who will be privileged to have the information and those of us who will not. There are other grounds for believing what the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have said. After 10 years of very hard workshowing a devotion to something that no two leaders in these islands have ever done in historythey would not have put it all at risk by making that statement if they did not believe it entirely and wholeheartedly. While I accept the point on weapons of mass destruction, and while I voted with the hon. Gentleman yesterday because I do not believe that people should be incarcerated without being given the evidence upon which they are being incarcerated and an opportunity to contradict it, on this occasion I am prepared to believe, and do believe, both leaders of both countries.

Lembit �pik: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is right that my comments imply two classes of politician. Indeed, they exist: we have Privy Councillors and the rest of us. Let me make it clear to him that I have not been privy to the information that I have discussedthe dialogue has been directly between my leader, who is of course a Privy Councillor, and othersbut I do register my belief that those of us who have now been actively involved, as the hon. Gentleman has, for many years do reasonably expect to be involved, on the basis of good faith, in the sharing of information.
	On the second pointlet me be very clear about thisthe Government have in many ways enjoyed a great deal of good will since their election success in 1997, the year in which they formed the Government, but to be honest, much of it has now been squandered. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the weapons of mass destruction debacle, which was used to justify a war, when we now see that no such evidence existed. Any member of the Government or the Opposition is entitled to be a lot more cautious these days and in future, and to require a higher level of evidence before important decisions are made with our support.
	Having said that, I think that the Government have made progress, which is welcome. Furthermore, events have moved on and, notwithstanding the Government's resistance to sharing important information with other Members of the House, the Independent Monitoring Commission has made some very important statements and I would be inclined to believe them. Lord Alderdice, whom I know well and respect greatly, is one of the influential thought leaders on these matters, and if he and the IMC believe that the IRA were involved in the robbery from the Northern bank, I would say that that in itself is important, albeit secondary, evidence to suggest that that is the case.
	Secondly, and even more importantly, I think that the killing of Robert McCartney dwarfs even the appalling nature of the Northern bank robbery. That is because of the sheer violence of the occurrence, the tragedy that flowed from it and, most significantly of all, the apparent involvement of the IRA in dissuading witnesses from coming forth. That offence, perhaps more even than the Northern bank robbery, causes me to believe that we have little option other than to introduce the financial sanctions that have been proposed by the Government.

Gregory Campbell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to consider that, in addition to the offences that he has outlined, the fact that we have significant information from the Chief Constable and others that three of the four Members are in fact members of the IRA army council would add to the weight of evidence that he has outlined and should motivate Liberal Democrat Members to vote in the Aye Lobby tonight?

Lembit �pik: The information that the hon. Gentleman highlights is, either through fact or assumption, pretty much known to us and has been for a long time. I know his position. I think that he has never felt comfortable with the granting of office facilities to those individuals, in large part for the very reason that he outlines. I have taken a different view. My feeling is that providing office access to these individuals has been, on balance, helpful to the peace process and to increasing pressure on Sinn Fein to try to bring its own house into order. That is a legitimate difference of view, but today's debate and the question of sanctions against Sinn Fein on the direct evidence indicating the seriousness of recent crimes is actually a slightly different matter, and probably not influenced directly by that information.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am following his argument closely and I want to question his logic. He said that giving the Sinn Fein MPs office space has moved towards encouraging them down the road of good and proper parliamentary democracy, yet actually we have had the Executive suspended in Northern Ireland for over a year because of Sinn Fein activity. Not just that, but we have had the extraordinary behaviour of Sinn Fein-IRA, which are inextricably linked, and he has just admitted that he accepts that three of those MPs are on the army council. They are the IRA itself.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood what I said because he believes that I have implied that the office space granted to the Sinn Fein Members has necessarily contributed toI will try to quote him nowits adherence to parliamentary democracy. That is not what I said. I said that the fact that they can operate within the walls of Parliament has actively helped uscertainly those of us who have been involved from Opposition partiesto commence dialogue with Sinn Fein, which I genuinely believe has altered that organisation's comments in the public domain and pressured Sinn Fein to put pressure on the IRA to come into line. The reason we are here today is because Sinn Fein has evidently failed in what I believe to be its duty to bring the criminal activities of the IRA into order.
	The hon. Gentleman will also know that paragraph 13 of the joint declaration made it absolutely clear that it was not acceptable to have an underlying level of either violence or criminal activity, and that those could be considered to constitute a violation of the ceasefire. This is why we are here, because I think we have to recognise that Sinn Fein must be brought to account for what has been going on with the IRA, but here is the irony: had we not given those facilities in the first place, we would not have the sanction to impose now. And the double irony[Laughter.] I am delighted that Conservatives finally recognise the importance of the influence we can now wield. Conservative Front-Benchers disappoint me by failing to understand the seminal importance of what we are doing. We are seeking to normalise Sinn Fein's operation when it comes to being a political party. I, for one, believe that we have gone some way down that track but, crucially, the fact that Sinn Fein has itself in a mealy-mouthed and vague way begun to condemn some of the activities of the IRA of late, can only be as a direct result of the pain it feels as a result of these sanctions. Others in this Chamber may disagree with that point of view, and I am happy to allow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to intervene, but they must surely recognise that the entire political process in Northern Ireland has been characterised by such difficult decisions, by the Labour Government and previously by the Conservatives.

David Lidington: Much as I would like to believe that conversations that the hon. Gentleman or I or any other Opposition politician have had with Sinn Fein have led to the sort of differences that he thinks he has seen, does not he really believe that what has persuaded Sinn Fein to come up with some of the mealy-mouthed expressions of regret and condemnation of recent weeks has been nothing to do with that, but rather with the drive by the criminal enforcement agencies in the Irish Republic against its operations, and the unmitigated anger of Irish nationalists and republicans at the brutality of the murder of Robert McCartney?

Lembit �pik: In part, I agree, but I have also had conversations with Sinn Fein and I personally judged that it is hurtin a financial sense and a very real senseby the sanctions that we are discussing today. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, he has obviously had different conversations from mine with Sinn Fein and drawn different conclusions. One of the great things about democracy is that we are allowed to hold different views and I look forward to hearing his further views later in the debate, but what I find particularly confusing is the apparently contradictory position taken by the Conservatives when in opposition in comparison with the kind of things that they did when in government.
	Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten, for example, that John Major was in communication with the IRA when it had not even instituted a ceasefire? Was he an apologist for the IRA? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting? I do not think so. I think that, despite my many criticisms of the Conservative Government at the time, one thing that they can be proud of is the risk that they took to initiate what went on to become the peace process. Taking the hon. Gentleman's absolutist view, one can only condemn John Major as having taken an unreasonable step in giving Sinn Fein and the IRA succour by talking to them while they were still killing people.

Richard Shepherd: Does the hon. Gentleman think that, possibly, his argument is founded on naivety, and that that is what astounds the House?

Lembit �pik: Which would be more naive, I ask the hon. Gentleman: what I have been saying, which is founded on the basis of judgment, or allowing an amnesty for weapons, as was doneonce again, under Prime Minister John Majorso that terrorists could give in their guns without any fear of legal cost? Once again, that was a courageous move by John Major and the then Government. Once again, there are those who now seem to criticise the resistance of some of us to removing the offices. That could be regarded by them as further kowtowing and playing into the hands of Sinn Fein and the IRA. Had it not been for the fact that John Major and other Conservatives were willing to take such risks at the time, it is possible that we would not have gone as far as we have.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman said that he recognised, in his terms, that Sinn Fein had made progress, but is he aware of the comments made by Mitchel McLoughlina leading member of Sinn Feinon RTE television after the Northern bank raid, when he said that the murder of Jean McConville, the mother of 10 children, was not a crime?

Lembit �pik: Yes, I am. My judgment is that Sinn Fein has a terribly long way to go. Apropos of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it is little short of breathtaking to me that those in the IRA can conduct themselves as they have regarding the killing of Robert McCartney, go on to suggest that the murder of the murderers is in some way a just response to that and then expect that there will be no sanction against Sinn Fein as a result. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Sinn Fein and the IRA are still making astonishing and appalling mistakes and that they have managed in just a few months to harm significantly the public relations progress that they had made over many years, I agree with him, but the decision that we must make today is how best to maintain the pressure on Sinn Fein to try to do right in a very wrong situation.
	It is my judgment that to take away the financial resource is an appropriate and measured response to what we have seen400,000, even to Sinn Fein, is a significant sumand it illustrates that we are not satisfied with the performance of Sinn Fein and the IRA of late. Furthermore, I am encouraged that, at long last, it seems that the Government have done what the Liberal Democrats have been requesting for a long time by imposing the conditions of paragraph 13. Many times, Ministers have sought to avoid the inescapable fact that serious and organised crime in many ways constitutes a breach of the ceasefire. I hope therefore that today's debate is an indication that the Government will take more seriously the complaints that many of us have made that the troubles are not simply confined to bombing and shooting, but include organised crime.

Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that organised crime is not specified in paragraph 13?

Lembit �pik: I think that paragraph 13 makes it pretty clear that organised crime is included. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman held that view. I would have assumed that he agreed that it is quite a simple matter for Ministers to interpret serious and organised crime as part of the terms of that paragraph. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say about that point.
	In conclusion, it is my judgment that we are right to impose the financial sanctions. Despite the Conservatives' apparent scepticism, about which I am surprised, the financial sanction will cause pain to Sinn Fein. In fact, I am surprised more than anything that the Conservatives feel that we are so ineffectual in the House that such measures are not taken seriously by others. However, it is appropriate to allow Sinn Fein to retain the office space for the reasons that I have given before. Furthermore, that allows us a further opportunity to return to increased sanctions if that is required.
	I find the whole issue of sanctions against Sinn Fein manifestly vexing and emotive, as we have heard in our recent exchanges, but one must maintain a level head when dealing with Sinn Fein. One must ask what is objectively the most effective means to control the excesses of the IRA and what limited impact we can have through Sinn Fein. As a result, I will encourage my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats to vote for the motion and against amendments (a) and (b). I ask other hon. Members, including those who sit on the Conservative Front Bench, to subjugate their feelings to their values and to do what they think is right, rather than what they think is expedient.

Kate Hoey: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). Usually, we are in agreement, but I am not in agreement with his views today, although I understand his reasons for saying what he said. I noticed that he said that the Liberal Democrats would have a free vote. I do not think that the Labour party will have a free vote. [Hon. Members: We will.] We will have a free votegoodbecause I put my name to amendments (a) and (b) anyway. Clearly, this is a parliamentary matter, and it should be decided on a free vote for all hon. Members. That allows myself and perhaps a couple of my colleagues whom I have sometimes supported and been involved with over the past couple of days to be on different sides on this issue.
	I listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and what he talked about and the way that he said it were well worth listening to, even though we may come to a different view about how we vote. However, the clear issue is the huge hypocrisy of Sinn Fein-IRA. They do not respect Parliament. They do not respect you, Madam Deputy Speaker. They do not respect anything about this British institution, yet they are prepared to take British taxpayers' money from my constituents to fund their political activity. That is rank hypocrisy. Of course, it is one of the reasons why, initially, I and many of my colleagues, even those on the Labour Benches, opposed the original decisionthis precedentto change the way that Members who do not take their seats are treated in the House. I said at the time that that would come back to haunt us. It is coming back to haunt us, and we are now having to go back and the Government are having to move to abolish the 400,000-odd that those Members get, but I do not think that that goes far enough.
	The money, the offices and the facilities of the House are linked. When we go down the road of taking away the extra privilegesnot a sanctionlet us consider that those changes were made specifically as part of a genuine attempt by some Members to help the peace process. That attempt has clearly failed, so we should go back to square one. Square one means that those who are not prepared to take their seats should accept, as many nationalist Members have done over the years, that if they are elected to Parliament while Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, they have to take the good with the bad. The good means that they receive payment and facilities. The bad means that they have to take their seats, as some Members who feel very passionate about the future of Northern Ireland have done over the years.
	I know that those people will plead martyrdom. Some Members have used that as a reason why we should not rescind what was agreed, but the reality is that those people will plead martyrdom whatever we do today. It seems rather strange that they will not plead martyrdom if we take away their money, but they will if we take away their offices.
	Those Members do not come here very often and in any case they do not try to engage in dialogue, but I find it distasteful to have to sit at a table in Portcullis House, as I did last week, next to someone who, as I and everyone in the House know, is a terrorist and a member of the army council. I do not know quite what he was eating as I did not look that closely, but he was eating subsidised food. That is outrageous at a time when, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) pointed out, we are passing a measure that will take away the liberties of many, many people merely on suspicionalthough I shall continue to oppose it if the House of Lords continues to maintain its position. We have more than a suspicion about the Sinn Fein Members of the House, certainly two of them.
	I find it amazing that, once again, the Government are prepared to do nothing but hold out this carrot, when time after time their hand is bitten off and we still allow these things to continue. Today, there was an opportunity for the Government, backed by all the parties, to move forward and say once and for all that until Sinn Fein-IRA decides that it is a proper political party that will use democratic means and give up criminal activity and organised criminality, its members cannot be treated as normal politicians.
	I shall obviously vote for the Government's motion, but I hope that in this free vote Members will realise that the motion does not go far enough. It will not be the martyrdom of Sinn Fein; it will just make them feel that once again they have got away with whatever they want. We must not allow that to happen any longer.

Ian Paisley: I am very concerned because I believe that the motion contains an indication of future Government policy. Only one crime is mentioned and that is that those people have not taken their seats.
	People have told me that they are amazed by the IRA. I reply that if they had lived among the IRA as I and my people have done, they would not be surprised. Because they are elected Members, there is nothing now or even when we have passed the motion to bar them from coming to this place. They can do as they did in Stormont; they can take the Oath in whispers so that nobody can hear them. They can sign the book and walk out and our motion will be finished. Finished. There is only one crimethat they do not take their seats.
	I fear that the motion is but a preparation to open the door again to the IRA in a year's time, or perhaps before. I am amazed that the Leader of the House said that we want to keep them in the democratic process. They have left the democratic process. Some of us came to the House and sat on these Benches, and as proper democrats made known our views on policy. For two and a half years, the Prime Minister of this country would not speak to me. Although I attended the House, he would not speak to me. Nobody in the House said, That's a shame. When they want Government policy to go ahead, they do not worry about who is hurt.
	I regret that this is probably the last time that we shall hear the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in this place. On the last occasion he spoke, he mentioned side issuesonly the people concerned know what they are getting, no one else knows. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many differences, as he knows, but we can at least come to the House and exchange views

Patrick Cormack: He is an honourable Member.

Ian Paisley: Indeed. If the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh had stayed in the House long enough, he might even have been a right hon. Member.
	However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh's interpretation of history. As I understand Irish history, the nationalists were keen to come to the House in the old days. They were keen to take the Oath and to declare which side of the House they supported. It seems to me that it is the republican element that brought in boycotting and the refusal to take the Oath. But that is a question for another day.
	I am greatly concerned about what will happen when we pass the motion. We are to wait a whole year, but in a year's time, nothing will change and eventually the door will open again to IRA-Sinn Fein.
	I have worked all my pastoral life in the Short Strand area. I have been there for about 57 years and I know the area better than anybody in the House. I know the people of the area. Because of the terrible murder that took place, those people were prepared to come out into the open. I salute their heroism and determination, and I hope that they achieve what they are after. If the IRA had shot the people who were named after that murder had taken place, would the House still be doing what it is doing today? Of course it would. The same arguments that we have heard today would be putthat we do not want to make martyrs of them and so on and so forth.
	I do not know when all of this will end. I have before me a paper that was given to the Prime Minister and the chief of police. It gives information about what were known as the killing fields of Northern Irelandsouth Armaghand describes many incidents that took place. It is a plea from people whose friends were murdered that the police will do something about it.
	The document lists the activities of Thomas Slab Murphy, who is well-known to people in Northern Ireland. It names Michael Carragher, who was an infamous IRA sniper, James McArdle, a leading IRA member, and Eddie Magill of Pointzpass and lists the accusations made against them. It also mentions John Gerard Hughes and his influence in the smuggling racket. It describes the system operated by Collins and Collins the estate agents. People in the area believe that it set up false companies to obtain VAT numbers for the criminal use of others.
	Those matters have been placed in the hands of the Prime Minister and the police, yet no real action has been taken. Are those people beyond the bounds or does the writ of the law of the House run in that area? The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland look at what goes on in the House. Over the past week, they have heard our debates and have heard the Government emphasise that there could be more terrorist activity, yet terrorist activity is going on and nothing is done about it. That is why the people of Northern Ireland feel that we must tell the Government that it is not peace at any price; it must be peace on the basis of democracy, fairness and justice. After all, those are the words coming from Short Strand: Give us justice. We do not want indicative anger, and we refuse to take the IRA's guns and say, 'Use them to shoot people,' because who knows who is guilty until the right word is passed?
	One thing is certain: those who have already been dealt with by the IRA in order to get certain information out of them suffered in their bodies, and they cannot be produced so as to see what sufferings they endured, so do not think that it was easy for the IRA to get the information it has put out; it came the same way as violence comes, and the persons involved suffered.
	This is the situation we face. What worries me is not only the money taken from the Northern bank, but the fact that there have been other terrible robberies, involving 10 million worth of tobacco and cigarettes. The Independent Monitoring Commission has noted that the IRA is responsible for those robberies. So, another 10 million is involved, as well as all the other pounds it lifts in levies throughout the country. The knock at the door comes and so much is levied. The IRA knows what people earn and where they work, and that is it.
	When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I talked to a constituent who told me that at one election she had three visits from five men, who came to remind her that there was an election on and that she must vote. That woman would not have been voting for them anyway, but she told me, I saw them coming, I stood at the door with them, they gave me the message and they left. Ten days afterwards they were back again, as they were the day before the election.
	Are we going to allow the people of Northern Ireland to suffer in that way? The House must take a strong stand. We have heard some strong words from the Government and from Labour Members, who say that we must deal with terrorism. They need to deal with terrorism now, in the backyard of our country. They must deal with it thoroughly and with all the strength they can muster.
	I make a plea to the House, no matter how we vote on this weak motion, which should have mentioned the IRA. We are not putting these people out because they did not take their seats. Nobody believes that. They are being put out because of the happenings, their cruelty and their terrorism. Why not tell the people the truth?
	I do not often agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but even he admitted that the point I was making is valid. It is valid. Why do we not mention the sins of these people, for which they are to be punished, instead of clothing the issue with this motion? I regret that we are not going to have the two good amendments, to which some of us, along with others, put their name.
	Also, we need to remind ourselves that these same people are Members of the Legislative Assembly; they will still get their money. These same people are councillors; they will still get their money. These same people have an MEP; she will get her full money from this House and the privilege given with it.
	The Government are not dealing radically with this issue. Let us face up to all the elected representatives who are in this movement and deal with them. Only in that way will they see sense and see that the game is up: no longer will violence or murder and mayhem pay. We are going to take the democratic road to peace for the future for all the people of Ulster.

Kevin McNamara: This is a difficult motion. It is difficult for some of the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), because it conceals a lot of issues and events that we are talking about. It is difficult also because I am not certain of its value. I do not believe, in the way that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) believes, that it will do a great deal of financial harm to Sinn Fein.
	The motion is difficult for me for another reason: this is the first time on record that I can think of that I will differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), as I shall vote for the Government and against both amendments.
	On the question of the Oath, I believe that people who do not accept that we should have a monarchy and people who perhaps challenge the right of this island to govern that part of the island of Ireland in which they live should not be expected to take an oath of loyalty to a Head of State who disagrees with their philosophical and national ideas. I believe that they should have the opportunity of coming here and affirming or affirming an oath, saying they will carry out their duty to the best of their ability in the interests of their constituents. That should suffice.
	For those of us who wish to take an oath of allegiance, that should still be an option, but I believe that nobody should be debarred from the House on the basis of an oath that they are expected to take. We did that in respect of Catholics, Jews, Quakers and others. I do not see why we should do it in respect of people who have a philosophical objection as republicans.

David Trimble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole point of the Oath is to make a formal statement of acceptance of the current legal and constitutional structure, which the House embodies and within which Members have to work? Does he also accept that refusal to accept it and failure to take an oaththe only way it can be accepted is through the Oath of Allegiance, because, apart from the House and the monarchy, we do not have many institutions that cover the whole country and we do not have a written constitution that embodies that structureare not just a mere technicality involving the monarchy, but a repudiation of that structure? As such, they ought to be an affront to the hon. Gentleman, just as they are to everybody else.

Kevin McNamara: No, I do not accept that at all. I believe that people can be elected to this place who can accept the state as it exists, but who seek to change that state fundamentally in respect of how the Head of State is chosen. They can do that by taking another form of oath, which does not mean that they are being asked to betray their principles.
	I do not believe for one moment that if we had changed the Oath that would necessarily have brought people from Sinn Fein here, but we should not insist on things and say that there are not obstacles to their being here that we can remove.
	My next point is that the House should bear it in mind that there has been considerable movement on the part of Sinn Fein and its leadership, despite all the thingsI admitwe have seen and know about. They are trying to lead their movement towards a peaceful acceptance. Indeed, we are told by the Government and the Democratic Unionist party that, but for want of a photograph, we would have had that in December. So, there has been movement, although hon. Members, the Government and the Taoiseach are right to point out that, probably at the same time, they were planning the robbery of the Northern bank. However, that robbery would not have affected the basic support of Sinn Fein one iota in the north of Ireland, although it might well have had an effect in the Republic. As the hon. Member for North Antrim pointed out, 10 million has been robbed from bank and post offices and that has not affected Sinn Fein's position.
	Sinn Fein's position has been affected by the savage murder of Robert McCartney. That has been the real blow to Sinn Fein and the IRA because it has undermined their position in their community. The event has done far more damage than any that we can do by passing the motion. The effect of the incident has been shown by their reaction to it, which was slow at first, but quickly became greater as they realised the affront that had happened in their community. The fact that they have now deplored the murder, urged people to come forward and placed names before the police ombudsman shows the pressure that the community has put on the leadership of IRA. That, more than anything, will hasten division in the republican movement. People at the head of Sinn Fein will eventually have to make a real and positive decision about that.
	Although it was reported little over here, the speech made by Gerry Kelly at the Ard Fheis in Dublin was interesting. He spoke about a need for acceptance of the development of police boards and the need for the disappearance of the IRA as an organisation. He used words and phrases that had not been heard before. It was also interesting that Gerry Adams accepted clearly and without qualification the legitimacy of the Government of the Republic because that represented a breakdown of the old mythology.

Seamus Mallon: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I read the speech, but I think that Mr. Adams recognised the institutions, rather than the state.

Kevin McNamara: If one recognises the institutions of the state as legitimate, given that their legitimacy comes from the state and their acceptance by the people of the Republic, it is fair to say, despite the words that Mr. Adams used, that his comments represent an enormous step forward from the old mythology of denying the legitimacy of the Republic. My hon. Friend and I can argue about the words and reach different conclusions, but I thought that the speech was a helpful sign, rather than something negative.
	Despite what has happened at the Ard Fheis, we have had a savage murder and the Northern bank robbery. We are in a position in which some Members of the House either knew about those events, or were negligent in not knowing about them, given their positions in the organisations. I have served on the Standards and Privileges Committee, which is both a privilege and an awesome task. The Committee has investigated complaints against normal Members. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards examines such cases and the Committee makes a recommendation regarding Members' conduct. In recent times, we have criticised Members for negligence and the House has upheld such findings. They have been suspended and sanctions and penalties have been put on them, but we are unable to do that in the present circumstances.
	We have one sanction that we can use to show our displeasure in a positive way. The motion will not affect the Members' pockets because they do not draw salaries, although sadly it might affect the pockets of their staff. However, it will be as powerful a sanction as that made when we have suspended people from the House without their wages or the right to use their offices in the House, although Sinn Fein Members will still have that right.
	I regret reaching this situation because I have spent a long time in the House trying to explain how I think the IRA behaves. I have tried to explain its philosophy and why it is treating the present situation as a ceasefire and waiting for the culmination of matters before final decommissioning. However, there is no way in which any sort of mythology of a guerrilla army can justify the savage murder of Robert McCartney, so I support the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I offer the House some guidance? The Modernisation Committee urges Mr. Speaker to put time limits on debates whenever possible, but it is not helpful if as many as eight hon. Members indicate that they wish to participate in a debate too late after such a decision has been made. The 12-minute limit on the debate is thus clearly inappropriate, given the number of hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye. If hon. Members will bear that in mind, we will try hard to accommodate everyone.

David Trimble: On 18 December 2001, my colleagues and I voted against the motion that gave a privileged position to Sinn Fein Members, so naturally we will vote for the amendments because they would reverse that motion, which is what should happen at the very least. I suppose that we give lukewarm support to the weak and feeble Government motion, so we will reflect that as well.
	It is a pity that the Leader of the House has not remained in the Chamber to hear the debate, because it would have been useful for him to do so. If he did not intend to stay in the Chamber, perhaps he should have given the Secretary of State or someone else the responsibility of leading for the Government. I wish to comment on several things that the Leader of the House said. His behaviour was rather similar to that of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the then Leader of the House, in 2001. We know from the right hon. Gentleman's memoirs that he had reservations about the 2001 motion, so I wonder whether the current Leader of the House has similar reservations about the motion's failure to be appropriately effective.
	The first point about the Leader of the House's speech might seem small, but it is important. He said that Sinn Fein is signed up to the agreement, but strictly speaking that is not true. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will knowbecause he was therethat no one signed an agreement. Votes were cast around the table to determine whether there was sufficient consensus. When the roll call for the vote was called, Sinn Fein abstained, so it cannot be colloquially said that it signed up to the agreement. There was subsequently a Sinn Fein Ard Fheis at which a motion was passed to approve the actions of the leadership, but the party did not sign up to the agreement. That fact is crucial to the way in which one approaches the matter.
	My view at the timeit remains my viewwas that the republicans were locked into an agreement that they did not like. They did not like it then and they do not like it now. They are locked into the agreement because they are participating in the democratic process. When they were simply engaged in a terrorist campaign, they were not subject to any such constraints. However, once they entered negotiations, they found themselves locked into them.
	I was slow to take this view, but it was not until after 1998 that I decided that even though Sinn Fein did not like the fundamentals of the agreementat that stage I did not think that its members had completely changed and become normal politiciansit was possible to bring pressure to bear on it and drag it towards normal, peaceful and democratic political activity.
	I disagree fundamentally with Members on the other side of the House who said that Sinn Fein rejoiced in its victimisation. I accept that its members try to exploit their victimisation, but it is wrong to argue that therefore we should not put pressure on them or subject them to sanctions. They have only moved under pressure, and the events of recent weeks and the activities of the McCartney relatives clearly demonstrate that that is the case. If it were not for the action of those families and the public support for them, republicans would not have done anything. It is only pressure that moves them, and it is only the pressure that my colleagues and I brought to bear that led to decommissioning, and to republicans moving towards a transition. That has been undermined, however, by the fact that the Government have not policed the process correctly.
	The agreement sets out some fundamental principles. On 18 December 2001, I said in the House that the motion that we were considering had undermined the agreement by sending republicans the message that they could disregard the obligations imposed on them by the agreement. I said that the Government would bend the rules and reward themthat is partly the fair point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who spoke about the way in which people were conducting negotiations outside the structures and principles of the agreement.

Lembit �pik: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, that paragraph 13 of the declaration does not include organised crime? However, it has been frustrating that at every step the paramilitaries have done the minimum necessary to satisfy the Government. Hopefully, today's debate will create a clearer picture for the IRA and the other paramilitaries so that they understand that conditions concerning bombing and shooting are not the only ones that have to be met for the normalisation of the Province.

David Trimble: It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to hang his hat on paragraph 13. If one looks at speeches made by the Prime Minister in 1998 one can see that his language is clearly broad enough to include criminality. Individuals who have recently made much of those comments should bear in mind the fact that he said at the time that the criteria and their application would necessarily become more stringent over time. In a transition, it is perfectly natural to expect criteria to be applied more stringently, and six or seven years into that period there is no basis whatever for failing to do so. In 2001, I considered that the motion was a mistake that would undermine the process: it would send republicans the signal that they could get away with it. Likewise, the activities of previous Secretaries of State, with their rather unpleasant references to internal housekeeping when there was brutality of a not dissimilar nature to the McCartney murder, undermined the process.
	The Government's failure to insist rigorously on the basic principles of the agreement is not helping at all, and is likely to reinforce among republicans the view that if they hunker down and wait, after a short and not even decent interval the Government, the Irish Government and others will return to negotiations with them. It will just be a matter of rehashing the usual steps. I suspect that even today, officials are trying to cobble together yet another deal on policing to entice republicans back to the process. To do so, against the background of the republican statements this week, is simply nauseating.
	Having made clear my view of the motion, I shall go a little further. Reference has been made to the individuals who were returned to represent certain constituencies and their activities. I am not sure of the exact composition of the IRA army council todaychanges are made to it from time to time for the convenience of the organisationbut three Members who were returned to serve in the House are or have in the recent past been members of that body. There is no serious doubt about that. The more significant question is what they have been doing, both now and in the recent past.
	I have referred to the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) read out the text, which clearly says that senior members of Sinn Fein who were also senior members of the IRAthere are very few senior Sinn Fein members who are not senior members of the IRAapproved the robberies that were taking place. There is no doubt that some of the individuals involved in the execution of the robbery were very close indeed to the leadership of the republican movement. We do not know, but it is probable that the leadership knew exactly what was happening and thought that they could and would get away with it.
	The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee, and actions that have been taken from time to time to suspend Members, reprimand them and so on. Occasionally, the House has gone further and expelled Members. That has been the case in comparatively recent times. A Member was expelled for telling a lie in Committee. He attributed dishonest motives to other Members when he himself was acting dishonestly. Another Member was expelled when he was convicted of the crime of forgery. He would have been disqualified because of the length of his prison sentence, but the House was not content to wait for that provision to take effect and expelled him. If the persons returned to serve in the House have not taken their seats and if they have been accessories to this crime, as the IMC report hinted, surely we should go further and follow those precedents. It would be proper to expel those persons from the House.
	That is the reasoning behind my amendment, and I am glad that it has received the support of other hon. Members. It is entirely reasonable in the present circumstances to see what further information can be obtained about the activities of Members, for that information to be presented to the House and for the House to take the appropriate action.
	Earlier, I said that at the time of the agreement republicans were locked into an arrangement that they did not like. I said that we could move them under pressure, and we did so to a significant extent. As a result, the situation in Northern Ireland is now quite different, so I make no apology for the decisions that we made in 1998, 1999 and 2000. It has become clear, however, that persons who were prepared to engage in politics are prepared to do so only up to a certain point. They are not willing to complete the transition and do what the Prime Minister has called for since October 2002. Their recent behaviour and statements give no indication that they are likely to change at all in future. We must therefore reassess the matter more fundamentally, and those who are now buying into the process must be careful not to become too eager.

John McDonnell: I was one of those miscreants, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who informed your Office during the debate that I would like to speak. I apologise for that, and will speak as briefly as I can. I did so because I was loth to speak in the debate until I had heard what other hon. Members had said. I know that it is unusual to listen to other hon. Members[Interruption]indeed, it is unprecedented, but I thought that that would be best.
	I want to raise three issues. First, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised a matter of principle and I respect him for that. It was the straightforward view that if someone is elected to this House and expects to receive the full privileges and income, they should be a full participant. That is a principled position, but there is a contrary argument that some people stand for election on a specific platform with a specific manifesto and tell their electorate that they will stand for election but not take office in the Chamber or swear the Oath. That mandate, whether we like it or not, has been given to a number of Sinn Fein Members by a majority vote, and we must respect the mandate of that electorate. That overrides the issue of whether they are full Members. We must respect the view of the people who elected them by a majority.
	I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that a side issue is taxpayers' money. I accept that, but those who voted for Sinn Fein also pay taxes and may want some of it spent on their Members of Parliament[Interruption.] I do not want to start a separate discussion on income tax and collection in Northern Ireland. A valid issue of principle has been raised, but there is a valid argument to the contrary.
	The second, more important issue is whether sanctions should be applied when events affect the standing of individual Members. We heard from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the normal processes by which we apply sanctions against Members. I refer now to the bank robbery, and I shall refer later to the tragedy of Robert McCartney. Under the rule of law, the normal process is that innocence is presumed until someone is found guilty beyond all doubt. In the bank robbery case, if individuals had been brought to trial, found guilty and had a direct involvement with Members of this House, or if Members had been involved, the normal sanctions would apply and the appropriate Committees of the House would have applied those sanctions. That has not happened.
	Too many allegations in the pastfor example, spy rings in Stormont and so onwere founded on intelligence that did not prove satisfactory in ensuring a prosecution. There is an argument, whether hon. Members like it or not

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McDonnell: I would rather not take interventions because I am subject to a time sanction, but I am happy to do so on this occasion.

David Burnside: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland there has been no investigation into the illegal fund raising or criminal activities of any member of the IRA's army council? Does he realise that in the history of the IRA's campaign no one has ever had the courage to stand up in a court of law and give evidence against those criminals?

John McDonnell: Let me respond by referring specifically to the bank raid. On numerous occasions in the House I have heard hon. Members say that evidence exists that leads conclusively to the fact that certain individuals were involved in the bank robbery, but since the Iraq war I no longer take such information on trust. If there is evidence, it should be brought forward in a court of law. Hon. Members have been arguing about that principle, and terrorism generally, for almost a week. I maintain that a matter of principle is involved in how we adhere to the traditions of this House and British justice.
	The Robert McCartney tragedy moves us beyond any specific case that we have debated before. We would expect anyone with information about the murder to come forward and provide that information to the relevant authorities. We would expect any Member of the House to exercise responsibility in urging any witnesses to come forward. We are discussing the application of sanctions against Sinn Fein Members in connection with the Robert McCartney case, but during the past week or so they have been prominent in urging witnesses to come forward and give any information to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
	There is an argument that witnesses should go directly to the police, but we have third-party reporting in my constituency because there has been a lack of confidence in the Metropolitan police among the black and ethnic minority community, and we have made arrangements, with the agreement of the police, for third-party reporting to other agencies. That has worked successfully. We are discussing sanctions in the Robert McCartney case, but Sinn Fein Members who were elected to the House have acted as we would have expected in terms of urgent co-operation with the relevant authorities in bringing information forward.
	The third issue is even more important. The motion today is not significant in its financial consequences; it concerns the way in which the peace process can be moved forward and where we go from here. Will the motion assist in moving the peace process forward to the ultimate conclusion that we want, of peace and justice, or will it impede that aim? I do not believe that it will have a dramatic effect. It might impede the process slightly for a number of reasons that have been given, in that there will be feelings of victimisation and some people may feel that it does not help to increase the dialogue that takes place informally here.
	I am concerned that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has not had the opportunity to meet Sinn Fein Members here. Some of us have had that opportunity at open meetings. I am also concerned that the hon. Member for Upper BannI am sorry, I mean the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)has not had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister regularly. The Prime Minister does not talk to me much either, but I urge him to talk to the hon. Gentleman, because he may be the future First Minister in Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley: I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister sees me nowbut two years have passed.

John McDonnell: I am so glad that the Prime Minister has made up for past misdemeanours, and that he is not in sackcloth and ashes.
	By far the most significant issue is how to move the peace process forward. We should do nothing that will undermine in any way the opportunity for dialogue. During the past 18 months I have been working with a group called the ministry for peace, and we have been considering peace processes throughout the world, including Palestine and Ireland. We have even considered how peace can be secured in Chechnya and elsewhere. One of the most important factors is to maintain dialogue, and to ensure that we use a language that does not impede the peace process.
	I pay tribute to the Government for all that they have done in the peace process overall, but before Christmas we had a real opportunity to bring to a conclusion the issue of arms. We could have made a dramatic move forward to secure peace. The talk of sackcloth and ashes and the demands for photographs from one side, and the inability on the other to confront more directly some of the activities of the republican movement, meant that we could not move forward. We now need to discuss how we can move forward.
	The McCartney case has made the republican movement address some issues that are overdue. The statement this week about shootings will enable the movement to address those issues, which are from a bygone era and now need to be put aside if we are to make progress towards peace. Therefore, rather than squabble over a motion that will not have much effect, I urge the Government to re-establish the dialogue. I also agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about ending the side deals. We need to get people back round the table so that we can look at the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement and secure the peace that all of us in this House want.

Patrick Cormack: This is essentially a House of Commons matter, and I very much hope that it will be decided by a truly free vote. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), in her brave speech, asserted that it would be a free vote. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said the same and I know that it will be a free vote for the official Opposition. I would like confirmation from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he winds up, that it will be a free vote on the Government side[Interruption.] Well, I treat every vote as a free vote, but that is not the point that I am making. I hope that every Member is able to vote as a Member of this House, because we are voting about Members of this House.
	I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not in his place. In a short debate such as this, at least one of the Cabinet Ministers taking part should be present throughout. It is an insult to the House that neither of them is in his place at the moment.
	My position on this issue is simple. We are considering four Members who have been elected to this Housenobody disputes thatwhose conduct has been wholly unbecoming to this House. I voted against the resolution in December 2001, but I saw the Government's logic in proposing it. At that stage, there were high hopes for the peace processsome would say misplacedon the Government's part. There were high hopes that the Sinn Fein Members would play a constructive part in that peace process, but those hopes have been thoroughly confounded since. Far from playing a constructive part, those four Members have been proved time and again to have not only a tainted past, but a tainted present. They have been involved with acts of criminality and acts of terrorism. Although we talk at present of the difference between the suicide terrorist and the IRA terroristthere is a differencewe should not forget that those who died in Omagh are just as dead as those who died in the twin towers. Those Members have been complicit in acts of terrorism. They are not worthy to sit in this House.
	I wished to be constructive in my opposition to the motion, so I tabled an amendment. It was not selected, and I make no complaint about that, but it would have limited the withdrawal of facilities, with a similar sunset clause to the one in the motion. I prefer the amendment that has been selected and I shall give it my support.
	I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is now in his place. I have great respect for him and nobody could even begin to deny his good faith. However, it is bizarre that in a little over an hour's time we will once again debate the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in an intervention earlier, the Government will urge us to allow them to introduce control orders that will be imposed on many people who are probably not terrorists. I do not dispute the Government's good faith or their overriding and paramount concern for public safety, but if they are prepared to do that, is it not paradoxical that, an hour before, they will vote against an amendment that would exclude people who are almost certainly terrorists and Members of this House? That is ludicrous and it makes the Government's stand against terrorism hollow.
	I regret that. I have many criticisms, which I have voiced in the Chamber, of the manner in which the Government have handled the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, but at no stage have I impugned their good faith in seeking to do what they believe to be right. None the less, I say to the Government that if that is their response to terrorism in general, here they have terrorism in particularfour Members, three of whom are or have been members of the IRA council, who have been involved in acts of terrorism and who have not washed their hands and divorced themselves from those who continue to be involved in acts of terrorism. That is the point. Here we have people who as recently as yesterday announced their willingness to take the law into their own hands, in the form of that extraordinary statement from the IRAof which Mr. Gerry Adams is still a member and to which Sinn Fein remains indissolubly linkedthat gun law can prevail in the United Kingdom. If nothing else can persuade the Government of the logic of my argument, yesterday's statement should surely do so.
	I hope, first, that the Secretary of State will assure us that this is to be a truly free vote for every Member of the House of Commons; and, secondly, that Members of the House of Commons will decide whether they truly want to allow access to all our privileges and facilities to people who refuse properly and adequately to represent their constituents in this place, by making speeches, asking questions and so on.

Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from us that we are on a one-line Whip on this House of Commons matter, as we received it last Friday from my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip?

Patrick Cormack: Of course I accept that from the hon. Gentleman, who is in every sense an honourable, although I think frequently misguided, Gentleman. In parenthesis, let me say how sorry I am that we have probably heard the last speech from him and from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Kevin McNamara: indicated dissent.

Patrick Cormack: I realise that we probably have about three weeks left in the Session. Both hon. Gentlemen have made a genuinely distinguished contribution to our affairs.
	I accept what the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) says, but I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. We all know that there are one-line Whips and one-line Whips, free votes and free votes; we all know that there is a payroll vote. I want an absolute assertion, which I shall of course accept if it is given, that every member of Her Majesty's Government will have the same right to vote as his or her conscience dictates as any other Member. We are all equal in this place.
	I wish to obey your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not take my full 12 minutes, even though I have been given an extra minute because of the intervention. I wish simply to stress the point that it is bizarre and ludicrous that we should, on one afternoon, move from the motion to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and treat so differently those whom we have just cause to suspect of terrorist activities.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall ensure that I finish in time for the winding-up speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I assure the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that I do not consider myself part of the payroll vote and that, as far as I am concerned, this is to be an absolutely free vote. If a Minister wishes to make an intervention to confirm the position on the payroll, I shall be happy to accept it.
	The hon. Gentleman's final point is important. We are moving from the bizarre to the ridiculous by, in a single afternoon, looking in opposite directions on two extremely important issues. This is described as a House of Commons matter; I prefer to describe it as a democratic matter. The House of Commons is behaving like a golf club in the way it treats its Members.
	Where do we get our authority from? Is it from being in the House and from some higher authority above us, or is it from the people who elected us? We must recognise that the Members whose allowances we propose to take away were elected, just like all the rest of us. They have a duty to represent their constituents and during all their election campaigns they made their position clear. In the case of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), he has made it clear since 1983 that on election he would not take his seat because he did not believe that the British Parliament should have jurisdiction over that part of Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: Did the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) also make it clear that he was and continued to be involved in criminal activities?

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is heading off again on the lack-of-evidence trail. If Members have been involved in criminal activities, they should be prosecuted. If they are not prosecuted, they are innocent until proven guilty, like anybody else when a charge is made against them.
	We are being asked to take away the staff and support services that Members need to represent their constituents, and we should think carefully about that because the implications go far wider. In future, if we do not like the political statements made by any Member of the House on any matter at any timeall of us have been unpopular on certain issues at certain times, as I know extremely wellis it right to deny my constituents, the constituents of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire or anybody else's that important right to representation?
	When a constituent comes to see me about a problem, I do not ask how they voted or how they intend to vote. I ask them what their problem is and I discuss it, as I imagine every other Member does. If that support is taken away from me or any other Member, that representation is reduced. We should be careful. We are not a golf club and we should not behave like one. We should behave like a Parliament that owes its authority to those who elected us.
	The hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) explained the wider implications extremely well. We have been through some awful times in Northern Ireland. An awful lot of people have died in the most horrific circumstances, the latest being Robert McCartney. Every loss of life and every act of violence is a tragedy. All the sanctions and illiberal Acts that were applied in the 1970sthe prevention of terrorism Acts, the emergency powers Act, all the orders, internment, the broadcasting ban, the travel ban and all the other measures did not take matters forward very much. What started to take matters forward was the courageit was courageof the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who were prepared to sit down privately together and hammer out some kind of agreement, which eventually led to the 1994 ceasefire and later ceasefires.
	I hope that dialogue prevails. That is what the Good Friday agreement, power sharing and the acceptance of the traditions of all communities were about. Those were important steps forward. The decision that we are asked to take today is not the end of life or the end of the whole process, but it is an important signal that the House is closing down that element of participation. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hull, North pointed out, by contesting elections, getting elected and becoming involved in the political process, Sinn Fein has been able to help bring about the ceasefire, exert pressure and provide a great deal of hope for the future.
	If those who voted Sinn Fein are told that their votes are not worth as much as the votes in my constituency or any other Member's constituency because we intend to take away their facilities, what message to them is that? Is the message that they should vote for someone else, or is it more likely to drive them away from a political process into a process that none of us wants to see developing?
	The House will obviously listen carefully to the Secretary of State and others, but hon. Members should remember that we get our authority from the people, not from above.

David Burnside: If the Scottish National party and the Welsh nationalists were corporately involved in widespread criminality, including murder, smuggling, intimidation and the threat of shooting people in the UK, would it be worthy of debate that they should continue to be treated like other hon. Members?

Jeremy Corbyn: Any actions such as the hon. Gentleman has described are meritorious of legal action, if there is evidence against an individual. Surely we all believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty. If there is a case against people, it should be taken to court and dealt with there.
	In this case, the security services have briefed Ministers, who have in turn briefed various hon. Members, and on that basis, we are being asked to make an important decision about hon. Members who have chosen not to take their seats. The security services have hardly covered themselves in glory in the past few years, and we are sceptical because of that performance. People must be accepted as innocent until a case is made against them.
	Returning to my earlier democratic argument, our job is not to deny individuals their representation in this House, but to try to bring about a peace process by political inclusion and political involvement. That is what the peace process and the Good Friday agreement achieved, and I urge all Northern Ireland Members in particular to support the idea of continuing the Good Friday agreement and the institutions that stem from it. Therein lies the road to peace and a prosperous and hopeful future for Northern Ireland. Today's motion is a step in the opposite direction, and I cannot support it.

Andrew Robathan: I shall be brief

Desmond Swayne: And loud.

Andrew Robathan: I shall be loud, too, if my hon. Friend wishes.
	My view is that the motion is too little, too late. For the past seven years, the Belfast agreement was a cause for optimism, but I always thought that it was built on sand. The Government's policy now lies in tatters around it, and the Government are starting to backtrack.
	It is now painfully clear that Sinn Fein never intended to go along with the Belfast agreement. According to the newspapers, all members of Sinn Fein and of the IRA refer to the Prime Minister as a prize idiot.

David Burnside: A naive idiot.

Andrew Robathan: That is an even better term. The prisoners are out, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been scrapped and those people have been allowed into the House of Commons, but for what? The Government have been the IRA's dupe and the IRA's patsy all along.
	When the Prime Minister gives Adams and McGuinness tea at Chequers, does he ask them about their crimes? Does he ask them about Jean McConville, Robert Nairac, who was a friend of mine, and the thousands of decent soldiers, policemen, prison officers and civilians who have been murdered during the troubles? I think not.
	The Government accept that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. It is a sad fact that these four MPs were elected by people in Northern Ireland. Other crooks have been elected to this House: murderers have been elected; Mosley was elected; Mugabe was elected in Zimbabwe; and, once upon a time, Hitler was elected in Germany. Those four MPs should be held responsible for their actions.
	Does the Secretary of State believe that Adams and McGuinness are on the army council? Everybody else does. If they are on the army council, they are not inextricably linked to the IRA; they are the IRA.
	Will the Secretary of State instruct the PSNI to investigate the claim that McGuinness made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), that in the early '70s he was responsible for the deaths of more than 10 Catholics, whom he judged to be informers? McGuinness should be held to account for those murders.
	Does the Secretary of State believe anything that Adams and McGuinness tell him? Sinn Fein lies and lies and lies againof course it was not involved in the Northern bank raid. Sinn Fein is the IRA. It contains thugs and murderers, and it is responsible for robbery, protection rackets, drugs, thieving, mutilation and exiles.
	I know that the Secretary of State is a decent man, not only because we were at the same Oxford college at the same time, but because he knows that what I am saying is true. The Government have been paying Danegeld for seven years. Danegeld has its benefits to those who pay it, as those who paid it to the Danes found as well, but eventually it comes back to haunt them. There have been fewer murders, but now is the time to address what the IRA has been up to. These people do not recognise this Parliament and should not have access to it.
	I note from the list of allowances that Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams both claimed more than 18,000 in additional costs allowance, which we all use for a second house. In other words, they are claiming 18,000-odd for staying away from home, which they do not do as they are hardly ever here. I suggest that the House authorities investigate where their second properties are. The press, who are so interested in our allowances, might do the same.
	The Government say that they are going to be tough on terrorists. I ask them to be so by barring them from this House until they accept the responsibilities of democratic MPs and live up to the many promises that they made when they took on their roles under the Belfast agreement.

David Lidington: We have been dealing with two related questions: first, the parliamentary question of whether there should in effect be two classes of Member; and secondly, whether, if the conduct of Sinn Fein-IRA merits sanctions, the motion tabled by the Government is adequate and proportionate in addressing that.
	However we vote this afternoon, the impact on Sinn Fein will not be much beyond the symbolic; we should be under no illusions about that. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said that the withdrawal of the financial allowances would hurt Sinn Fein, but I question whether an organisation that thrives on criminal enterprise will have to tighten its belt very much whichever way we vote.

Lembit �pik: I agree that anything we may do is marginal, but it will have some limited effect. I believe that the primary impact will be to add to the public relations difficulties that the Sinn Fein organisation has generated for itself largely by its inability to rein in the excesses of the IRA.

David Lidington: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is being incredibly naive in believing in this distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Neither the British Government, nor the Irish Government, nor the police on either side of the border are prepared to share that belief with him.
	I shall briefly spell out the effect of our amendments. Amendment (a) would make the 12-month suspension of allowances indefinite, while amendment (b) would extend the scope of the motion to cover other parliamentary privileges. Taken together, they would restore the position to that established by Speaker Boothroyd's ruling after the 1997 general election.
	Let me come first to the parliamentary argument, which was dealt with particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). There should not be two classes of Member. We are sent here to represent our constituentsthose who voted for us and those who did not alike. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the allowances, offices and staff passes are there to enable us to do our job of representing those constituentsthey do not come to us as of rightand the same set of rules should apply to every Member of Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) acknowledged that Sinn Fein's policy of abstention goes beyond the Oath alone. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) observed, that policy amounts to a deliberate and calculated rejection of the existing constitutional and legal order in the United Kingdom.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) commented that the Provisional IRA considers itself the legitimate Government of the whole island of Ireland. That is a theological and ideological belief that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) illustrated well when he reminded us that Mr. Mitchell McLoughlin recently denied that the abduction and subsequent murder of Mrs. McConville was a crime because, in Sinn Fein-IRA's view, it is for the IRA council to decide what constitutes legality and illegality anywhere on the island of Ireland.
	The Government justified the change that they introduced in 2001 on the ground that it would help the political process. Despite the fact that it represented a break from the way in which the House of Commons had traditionally treated all Members alike, in the Government's judgment it was a necessary move to engage republicans more fully in the democratic process and to recognise the transition that the republican movement was making from terrorism to exclusively democratic politics. However, the motion is not an adequate or proportionate response to recent events.
	The Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Garda Siochana and the Independent Monitoring Commission all declare that Sinn Fein both knew and approved of not only the Northern bank robbery but a sequence of recent serious crimes. Those comments were made before the savage murder of Mr. Robert McCartney. As the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out, crime, violence and intimidation are still rife, especially in areas such as south Armagh and parts of Belfast, where paramilitary gangs prey on the people whom they claim to protect.
	The action that the Government should take is not what the motion proposes; it is to stop giving Sinn Fein an effective veto over any political progress in Northern Ireland. We cannot wait indefinitely for the republican movement to make the transition. It is time for the Government to move forward with the democratic nationalist and Unionist parties. That is a subject for exploration and debate on another occasion.
	The main argument against the Opposition amendments that Members on the Government side of the House, especially the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, present is that accepting them would allow republicans to pose as martyrs. Given that the hon. Gentleman has made the argument, I respect it and I reflected on it before reaching a judgment on the motion and amendments. Nevertheless, I believe it to be mistaken. Of course republicans will pose as martyrs and victimsit is part of their stock in trade. However, if we tie our hands by refusing to take action for fear that they will pose as martyrs, we end by granting them virtual immunity, however grave their actions or failure to deliver on democratic promises. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, the history of recent years suggests that republicans move only when they are put under pressureand then, I would add, only at the last practical moment.
	Today, despite many years since the agreement during which the Government have bent over backwards to help republicans make the transition to democracy, we remain in a position whereby the Provisional IRA retains its active military structures, with the capacity for terrorism, uses crime to raise money and intimidate nationalist communities, and retains stocks of illegally held guns and explosives. The onus now should be on the republicans to end their involvement in crime, to stand down the IRA as an effective military force, to turn it into an old comrades association, and to decommission the weapons that they ought not to hold and which, given their repeated promises to be committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics, they have no reason to keep. It is just not enough to say, as the Government motion does, that we will suspend the allowances for 12 months, and then Parliament will consider the matter again and see whether the republicans' behaviour has improved.

Peter Robinson: Is there not a parallel in the Government motion leaving the door open for Sinn Fein in the forlorn hope that it might reform itself? While the Government say that Sinn Fein and the IRA are doing wrong, they are still not prepared to say that democracy in Northern Ireland should proceed without them.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many different models of democratic progress could be explored, which the different democratic parties have put forward to the Government. While, in my view, the idea of a fully inclusive devolved Executive remains desirable, it is clear that that is not practical politics in anything but the longer term, given what has happened over recent months. We must declare in how we vote this evening our belief that it is now up to republicans to demonstrate that they have finally delivered on their oft-promised commitment to democracy. When they have done that, perhaps Parliament will revisit the issue. That is why I prefer an amendment that insists that the suspension of parliamentary privileges and allowances should be indefinite.

Kate Hoey: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify for me his interpretation, as the Leader of the House was not able to do so, of
	a period of suspension of one year commencing on 1st April 2005?
	Does that mean that, automatically, from 1 April next year, without any debate or discussion, the current arrangements will come back?

David Lidington: My interpretation of the Government's motion is that the resolution of 2001, which gave Sinn Fein Members privileges and allowances, remains in force, but by virtue of the Government motion would be suspended for 12 months, and that those allowances and privileges would therefore automatically be resumed in 12 months unless a new motion were brought forward deliberately to extend the period of suspension.
	The Opposition's amendments clearly place the responsibility to act on the republican movement, and that is where the responsibility belongs. I hope that those amendments, which have the support of Members from many parties represented in the House, will command a majority of votes when we divide at the end of the debate.

Paul Murphy: This has been an informed and interesting debate. Obviously, that has resulted in different points of view being expressed.
	Before I make my remarks, I want to reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) with regard to the nature of the whipping on this debate. I can do no better than refer to the points made by the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in the previous debate:
	it will be on a one-line Whip. If Labour Back Benchers do not share the view I have expressed, they are perfectly entitled to express theirs. As to other members of the Government, I shall move the motion on the Government's behalf and of course I shall, not unreasonably, look to the Government for support.[Official Report, 13 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 1006.]

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) mentioned in his speech that certain Members of the House had been briefed on a Privy Council basis regarding evidence in relation to the Northern bank robbery. Can the Secretary of State confirm who exactly has been given special briefings on this issue, and whether that will be extended to the leaders of other parties in the House?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman may recall from, I think, the statement on the Northern bank robbery some weeks ago that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) asked whether the leader of the Liberal Democrats could be given some sort of briefing on the robbery by the Chief Constable. I promised to pass on his request to the Chief Constable, whose decision it must ultimately be.

Desmond Swayne: Was there not any whiff among the security services that an operation of that dimension was in the offing? I understand that the Secretary of State will not be able to answer that question, but were the answer to be Not much, would he reflect on why that might have been, given the record of the Northern Ireland security services in respect of intelligence, which was formidable?

Paul Murphy: I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	The last thing I wanted was for the debate to take place at all. It is seven years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, and Northern Ireland Members will recall that only a few months ago we were again very close to an agreement. That would have meant a period between the agreement and the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive during which the IMC would have verified whether criminality had been carried on during those months by the Provisional IRA. But it was not to be.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who said that in a sense this debate about support for Members who have chosen not to take their seats masks something very simple. The debate is, of course, about sanctions, about penalties and about effectively imposing a fine on Sinn Feinbut what it is really about is what has happened over the past few weeks in relation to the criminality associated with the Provisional IRA, and the way in which events described by Member after Member this afternoon have to all intents and purposes torpedoed the political process that we have seen in recent months.The hon. Gentleman spoke of the sins of those who had committed those acts. Indeed, this three-hour debate is, or at least should be, about those sins, and its title is inadequate to describe what we are dealing with today.
	The hon. Members for South Staffordshire and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), my hon. Friend the. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and, of course, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) all referred to recent eventsin particular the Northern bank robbery, which was mentioned just now by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), and the murder of Robert McCartney. In the last couple of days there has also been the IRA's statement. All of those things have contributed to why we are having this debate.

David Burnside: The Secretary of State is making a very good case in describing the criminality that continues in the Provisional IRA. I believe that he is going to the United States in the next few days. When he announces to the American Congress, President and people that the sanction against the IRA is taking away their allowances in the Palace of Westminster, what reaction does he think he will get, in the context of the fight against international terrorism?

Paul Murphy: I shall come to that shortly, but the IMC said that whatever we did here in the House of Commons, and whatever I had to do about allowances for the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would all be deeply inadequate to address the issue with which we are dealing today. There are differences between Members, but they all agree that we must address the criminality that lies behind the events of the past few weeks which is poisoning the political process. We can take away the allowances of the Members whom we are discussingfine them, in other words. It has been said today that if we take half a million pounds from Sinn Fein it will not matter, but I think it will demonstrate the profound disagreement in the House of Commons with what has happened.
	If we extend that to other aspects such as access to the House of Commons, there is a disagreement among us about whether we should do that as well. The disagreement is not about a question of principlewhether there should be sanctionsbut about the balance that we need to strike. On the one hand we penalise the party, but on the other hand we do not want to penalise the people who voted for certain people in certain constituencies. There are genuine disagreements about that matter, but in both cases the argument is inadequate to address the issue of criminality, which has brought down the political processes and talks over the last number of weeks.

Patrick Cormack: Before he finishes, will the Secretary of State address the paradox that I mentioned earlierthat we are going to slap control orders on people who are probably not terrorists, while allowing terrorists in our midst?

Paul Murphy: The issue is not about control orders or sanctions. It is about how we deal effectively with the process in Northern Ireland that has resulted in the criminal activity that we have seen over the last number of weeks. It is about how we ensure that Sinn Fein goes back into the talks, having rid itself of all that the IRA has done over the last number of weeks. There must be a split between criminality on the one hand and the proper political process on the other.

Andrew Robathan: I thank the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy, which is what I would expect from an old Orielensis. He has spoken about the criminality of the last few weeks, but is it not a fact that the IRA has been deep in criminality throughout its existence and throughout the time of the Belfast agreement? Does he remember that, under the terms of the document on decommissioning published in April 1998, all weapons were meant to be decommissioned within two years of the referendums? They are now about five years late.

Paul Murphy: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that no one thought for one second that criminality had ended. The joint declaration document that the two Governments published some time ago made reference to criminal activity. What everyone thought in 1998 was that there would be a period of transition during which such criminality would wither away, eventually leading to a period of normal politics in Northern Ireland. The problem over the last number of years, and particularly over the last number of months when the events that we are discussing took place, is that that has not happened. It has not happened quickly enough and it has not happened in respect of quantity, either. The type of criminality that we have seen in Northern Irelandit has been associated with the Provisional IRA and the equivalent loyalist paramilitary groupshas not gone away. That is the issue that the House has to consider today. Whether we vote for the amendments or for the Government motion, we are expressing the deep and profound disapproval of the House of Commons for what has happened to the political and peace process in Northern Ireland.

Lembit �pik: Does the Secretary of State agree that Sinn Fein should take note of the fact that those who have sought and sustained a constructive dialogue nevertheless find themselves with no alternative but to support the sanctions? That is a consequence of the strains that the IRA's actions have now placed on the process. Sinn Fein really must reflectI am sure that it willon our debate and start visibly to put its house in order before relationships based on good will are strained even further.

Paul Murphy: That is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Aylesbury was also absolutely right when he said that the onus in this process is now entirely on Sinn Fein to prove to the people and the political leaders of Northern Ireland, to the House of Commons and to both Governments that it is truly going down the non-violent, democratic political road that lay at the heart of the Good Friday agreement. The criminal activities that we have seen over the last number of months clearly violate the principles of that agreement and everything that anyone involved in the talks leading up to it expected. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will remember, as they were so involved in the talks leading up to the agreement, that everything was based on the principle of non-violence and the democratic process. Robbing banks, murdering people, so-called punishment beatings and racketeering are all completely unacceptable when more than 2 million people in Ireland, north and south, voted for a peaceful future in 1998. Regardless of whether they agree with the Good Friday agreement, all Members of the House believe that that is the right thing to do.

Brian Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend also acknowledge that the willingness to accept Sinn Fein according to the terms that it uses to present itself has undermined and undercut genuinely democratic political organisations in Northern Ireland? Sinn Feinor Sinn Fein-IRA, whatever it calls itselfhas been involved in serious criminality in the past. Should not the Government be more transparent about what they know, so as to protect and support the genuinely democratic political parties in the north of Ireland?

Paul Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Those who know about Irish history know that the genuinely republican people who set up the Irish Republic, and those who consider themselves to be of a republican persuasion, would be genuinely and sincerely alarmed at the present level of criminality in the IRA. That has nothing to do with persuading people to vote for either the republican or nationalist cause. Regardless of whether they have a Unionist or nationalist background, people in Northern Ireland must accept the principles underlying the new policing arrangements and criminal justice system there. Those arrangements were voted for by the people of Ireland, north and south.
	Last week, the Catholic archbishop of Armagh said that Catholics should assume their full civic responsibilities for an agreed and representative system of law and order in Northern Ireland.

Martin Smyth: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise to the House that other business meant that I could not be present for the whole debate. I agree with what the archbishop said, but will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it was De Valera who clamped down harshly on Sinn Fein in the republic, and that some of us will have to do the same in the UK? When he considers the views of those who voted for the party, will he bear it in mind that Sinn Fein-IRA executed four Members of this House? What sort of politicians are Sinn Fein Members? There is a great difference between the British way of life and what they want to impose on Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points, and many hon. Members in this debate have said that the consequences of the murder of Robert McCartney, and the subsequent campaign by his sisters, have been more profound than anything that has happened in recent weeks. People in republican communitiesin that case, in the Short Strand areahave risen up to disagree with and disown the terrorist intimidation that they have had to put up with over so many years. That is more significant than any other development. Obviously, the McCartney family's very courageous stance is to be applauded, but it shows that genuinely republican people in Northern Ireland who voted for Sinn Fein over the past seven years have become completely fed up with the sort of intimidation recently evident in the Short Strand area. That response is more telling than anything that the Government might propose.
	The events of recent weeks are hugely disappointing in the context of what has happened over the past few years. They have clearly got in the way of progress in the political process. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), but I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, who said that, despite the recent difficulties, everyone in Belfast or any other community in Northern Ireland understands that it is a different world now, compared with seven years ago.
	Progress has been made, and peace achieved, because politicians from all parties have worked together to make Northern Ireland a much better place in which to live and work. We do not have the killings or bombings that we used to have, and we should be grateful for that. However, that does not mean for one second that the criminality issue must not be addressed, because it has to be. Until that criminality issue is addressed, I fear that the peace process in Northern Ireland will be jeopardised in the days and the weeks ahead.
	I urge my hon. Friendsindeed, all Members of the Houseto support the Government's motion today.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 358.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: (b), in line 5, leave out from effect to end.[Mr. Lidington.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 357.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That for a period of suspension of one year commencing on 1st April 2005 the Resolution of the House of 18th December 2001 relating to Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in proceedings in Parliament shall not have effect in so far as it provides for their claiming support for their costs under the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance etc., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.

Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are well aware of the importance of RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth to my constituency and my previous difficulties in being properly informed about statements by the Ministry of Defence. Today, journalists have raised with me the impending announcement of the future stationing of Nimrod MRA4 aircraft at Kinloss. I have been told what the scope and time scale of the decision are supposed to have been, but, despite six calls to the Ministry of Defence, I have not received written confirmation about the details of the announcement, although I was promised it within seconds at 1.14 this afternoon. At 4.10 pm, I received a faxed letter with no details about the Nimrods but a hand-written addendum from the Minister of State saying that there would be an announcement tomorrow.
	On the related matter of job losses, the Ministry today issued a written statement on how many posts are set to go as part of the end-to-end logistics review. Part of the statement was provided to the House, but not the tables with the numbers, which were forwarded by the MOD three hours late. The details had to be faxed to me by a newspaper that had received them before me. That information confirms that almost 1,000 posts are to be relocated or lost from bases in my constituency.
	How many points of order will it take for the Ministry of Defence properly to inform Parliament and parliamentarians about key issues relating to thousands of jobs? It is a scandalous abuse of Parliament that the service community and the media have been so cynically manipulated. What can you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect Parliament and parliamentarians so that announcements are made properly in this House?

Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The table to which the hon. Gentleman referred reveals that 160 jobs will go at RAF Leuchars, which is in my constituency. Has any member of the Ministry of Defence team suggested making an oral statement to the House? Is it not right that, for the proper protection of those we represent, such announcements should be made in the House so that Ministers can be made to answer for them to those Members of Parliament whose constituents' interests are directly affected?

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems likely that we are about to suspend our proceedings while we await further messages from the other place about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Instead of suspending, what better opportunity is there for a Minister to come to the Chamber to make a proper statement so that we all know exactly what is happening about these important issues? That point was raised with the Leader of the House at business questions today. He said that he would take it up, so perhaps he can tell us exactly what he has done and exactly what is happening.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should it not be your judgment that the House continue, could Ministers request an early resumption, ahead of the Lords messages, so that these matters can be properly dealt with? We have the ideal parliamentary opportunity to do so and it would be a pity if a petty procedural point got in the way of Ministers accounting to us for their actions.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recallI think you were in the Chair at the timethat I raised this matter with the Leader of the House. He promised to take urgent action to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence was told of the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House about constituency matters of great importance to us and our constituents being announced in a written statement with no details when a briefing was given to the local media, but not to Members of Parliament. As the Leader of the House is in his place and as the House is sitting, may we have a statement from a Defence Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for giving me notice that he intended to raise this point of order. Mr. Speaker has said on several occasions how concerned he is by cases in which the media are informed of official decisions relating to a Member's constituency before the House and Members are notified. It is also important, in Mr. Speaker's view, that such information should be provided in a timely, accurate and complete manner. I will of course draw the hon. Member's remarks to Mr. Speaker's attention.
	In response to the further points of order that have been made, the House will know that the Chair cannot command the presence of a Minister. Whatever opportunities may exist have to be determined in another way. I hope that it has been noted that there is widespread concern that such incidents are unfortunately becoming less rare and that Members are rightly concerned, as is Mr. Speaker on their behalf. Members come first as far as important and sensitive information about their constituencies is concerned, and such information should be dealt with in a proper manner.

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am well aware of the concerns of the House, which were expressed at business questions and have been vigorously reiterated this evening. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been made aware of those concerns and will be made even more aware by the points that have been raised.

Alan Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the Leader of the House intervened at this point. Several references have been made to the possibility of a statement being made tomorrow, but the House is not sitting tomorrow, although it may continue to sit today for some time. Therefore, there will be no opportunity for a statement to be made and for Mr. Speaker's advice to be obeyed. That surely adds to the pressure for a Defence Minister to come to the House at some point this evening to meet the reasonable requests of Members.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that Thursday can last until Sunday if necessary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can, with joy, confirm that to the hon. Gentleman. That is a parliamentary fact. The Leader of the House has heard what right hon. and hon. Members have had to say on this matter and the Chair cannot go further than that.

Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just been given a copy of the table and it shows substantial changes for RAF Leeming in the Vale of York. The House now has an opportunity to discuss those changes, which will cause enormous concern across north Yorkshire, and it is astounding that we cannot do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obviously concerned that the hon. Lady's constituency will also be affected, but the general point has been well made. It must be left now to the Government to decide how to respond.

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, consideration of any Lords Messages that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill

Lords reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They agree to certain Commons amendments to certain Lords amendments and disagree to certain other Commons amendments to Lords amendments, for which disagreement they assign their reasons. They do not insist on certain other amendments to which the Commons have disagreed but do propose amendments in lieu thereof, and they do not insist on their remaining amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. Copies of Lords reasons and amendments are available in the Vote Office, as are the Government's proposals relating to the message. All Government proposals will be debated together.
	Lords reason: 1D

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment No.1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments 37A to 37O, disagrees to Lords amendments 37Q to 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8, and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment No. 17.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords reasons 12A, 13A, 15A, 17G, 22A, 27B, 28A, 31B, Government motion to insist c. and Government amendments (a) and (b), Lords reason 33D and Government motion to disagree c., Lords reasons 37P to 37T, 38A, 39A, 40A, 42D, 42E and Government motion to insist c.

Charles Clarke: As you indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are debating all the amendments together, and I intend very briefly to go through the Government's position on each of the issues that has been addressed.
	I turn first to Lords reasons 38A, 39A, 40A, etc. The effect of the Lords motion is that the Lords have insisted on their amendment to the schedule that provides for the Lord Chief Justice to make the rules and to require rules of court to be compatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights and have proposed a different procedure for the making of first rules. We do not accept that that set of proposals is sensible. First, the Lord Chief Justice does not make rules of court. Secondly, the rules must be compatible with article 6 in any event. Thirdly, we have changed the procedure to allow affirmative resolutions to approve the rules. I therefore ask the House to insist on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40, insist on its amendments Nos. 42A and 42B, agree to its amendment No. 42C, agree to Lords amendment No. 42D and disagree with Lords amendment No. 42E proposed in lieu.
	Secondly, I address Lords reason 1D, which refers to the Secretary of State making non-derogating orders and to the standard of proof. The effect of the Lords' motion is that they have rejected our amendments in relation to the making and judicial supervision of non-derogating control orders and to standards of proof. They are insisting on their own amendments in relation to those matters. We had a very long debate on those issues last night. The will of the House was expressed very clearly indeed. I do not propose to accept the amendments proposed, since I believe that a reduction in the standard of proof would lead to the likelihood that certain dangerous individuals who otherwise would be brought under control through control orders would not be so controlled. That is the advice that I have had from the police and the security services. I therefore conclude that the Lords amendments are not an improvement.
	My amendments indicated very considerable movement by the Government to address the concerns expressed in both Houses. For that reason, I ask the House to insist on its amendments Nos. 1A and 1B to Lords amendment No. 1, insist on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37, and insist on its amendments Nos. 37A to 37O, to disagree to Lords amendments 37Q to 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8, and propose the additional amendments listed in my name on the marshalled list.
	I believe that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), in responding to this discussion, should answer a key question when considering these amendments. Will he confirm that his policy neglects the advice of the police and security services and would mean that control orders would not be placed on certain individuals whom the police and security services consider a threat?

Mark Oaten: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that it is difficult for Opposition parties to answer that question unless we can be shown the evidence on which the assumption is based? Will he make available the evidence that is being given to him by intelligence sources?

Charles Clarke: I will make available in general terms[Hon. Members: Oh]it is a very important distinctionthe evidence for the basis of the case that we make. Indeed, I did that only last week in a general case to explain why we were concerned about the issues. I will not confirm that I will make available in particular terms the particular situation relating to particular individuals, because it is precisely in those particular circumstances that national security issues are at risk. However, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I am ready to acknowledge, as he asks, that, on the procedures for which he has been pressing and that my noble Friend the Attorney-General has set out in relation to Committees of the House, it is important to be clear that they allow the special advocate to understand the case in the round. I shall comment on that in more detail later in my remarks.

Dominic Grieve: Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said that the security services require the control orders. Without going into individual cases, it ought to be perfectly possible for the Government to place before the House, as they have done in the past, the views of the security servicesboth security servicesso that the House can know whether that is correct. As the Home Secretary will appreciate, ever since the events surrounding the Iraq war it has been difficult to take anything that the Government say on trust.

Charles Clarke: I am very sorry indeed that the hon. Gentleman should seek to cast doubt on the security services[Hon. Members: No, you did.] No, that is precisely what he sought to do. I have always acknowledged, from my statement on 26 January and throughout the various debates, that the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has caused concern and has led to issues of trust that need to be addressed

Patrick Cormack: Will the Home Secretary give way?

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I am not giving way.
	There are issues of trust in relation to both the Government and security and intelligence information. That is a fair point to make in discussion. However, because the doubt has been raised in the way the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised it, I argueit is an important argumentthat it cannot be asserted simply on the basis of that doubt that all evaluations by all the security services of any threat to come should be cast aside, because they should not be.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I shall give way once more and then I want to make progress.

Dominic Grieve: Let us bring the discussion to this particular topic. The Home Secretary knows that, last week, the Prime Minister claimed that there were hundreds of potential terrorists abroad in this country. Within 24 hours, there had been a leak from the security services saying that that was nonsense and that the figure was between 10 and 20. Clearly, we cannot verify whether that leak was accurate, but the Home Secretary might reflect that it casts some doubt on whether we should accept either his word or that of the Prime Minister on anything.

Charles Clarke: First, the hon. Gentleman is not talking about leaks and all that side of things. The figures that he quotes are actually set out in the financial memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment that we put before the House when we published the measure. They are entirely public documents and one would think that a competent Opposition would have studied them carefully before considering the situation[Interruption.]

Tam Dalyell: How come the Home Secretary has been unable to persuade Paul Condon of all this?

Charles Clarke: The main reason for that is an important one, which relates to a discussion that we held earlier. The events of 9/11 and those that followed were particularly significant. Paul Condon resigned as Metropolitan Police Commissioner before that time[Interruption.] Yes, he did. The House should consider equally the remarks of Sir John Stevens, Lord Stevens, on that question. He was commissioner at that time and had to deal with those issues. The House should also consider the position of the current commissioner. Today, at a briefing for the crime reporters association

Patrick Cormack: Will the Home Secretary give way?

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I am not giving way, as I have already made clear.
	The question to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was:
	Do you have a feeling that the legislation
	on the prevention of terrorism
	is being prepared so rapidly by the Government because of concerns over the general election?
	That was putting the Opposition's allegations directly to the commissioner. He answered:
	I cannot say that, but I can say very clearly that the Government is in a position that on Monday if this legislation is not passed these men must be released from Belmarsh.
	That was the commissioner speaking. He continued:
	I think that will be a grave threat to the national security, I can certainly say that.
	The evidence from the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who had the job of dealing with the post-9/11 situation, and the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is absolutely clear on this question.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: No, I shall not give way. I am going to make progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the Home Secretary is indicating that he is not giving way at this juncture.

Charles Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I now turn to Lords reasons 27B, 31B and 32B, dealing with Privy Council review and annual reviewer, and Lords amendment No. 33D, dealing with the sunset clause. The Government's motion

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I shall not give way.
	The Government's motion states that the House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32 and proposes amendments in lieu in relation to the scope of the independent annual review. The effect of the two amendments tabled in my name is to extend the scope of the independent annual review of the Act so that the review covers the whole Act, rather than just sections 1 to 6 on operation of control orders, as now.
	Under these amendments, the appeal provisions will come within the scope of the review, as will the arrangements for reviewing the Act once passed. I think this proposal goes towards dealing with some concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House and also by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman in the other place, about the way in which these issues are to be considered when the legislation is taken forward.
	As I said yesterday, the Bill already provides a number of provisions for substantial and considered review of this system of legislation. They are, first, the quarterly reports that I, as Secretary of State, make to Parliament on the use of the powers to make control orders and, secondly, an independent reviewernow, I suggest, of the whole operation of the Actmaking an annual report, which is laid before Parliament. I confirm what I have said before: I will ask the independent reviewer to look specifically at the continuing need for the provisions in this Bill in the light of any new counter-terrorist legislation.
	I proposeI emphasise this new proposition nowto widen the remit to the whole Act, not simply the control order powers and the offence provisions.
	My proposal of last night was for the annual renewal of the Act with a vote in both Houses of Parliament to look at that situation. The proposal in the Bill enables the House to vote annually on the need to continue the capacity to make derogating control orders, if at some future stage we decide to derogate. I gave a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) yesterday to have discussion across all parties after the election about the best way of taking this legislation forward. Of course, the opportunity for new legislation in the next Session gives us another opportunity to review these provisions.
	I can confirmagain responding to Baroness Haymanthat we will ensure that the proposed legislation both has proper pre-legislative scrutiny and will be introduced as early as possible in the next Session.
	I believe it is important, coming back to the attitude of the Conservative party, that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield state whether, in any post-election discussion of the type that we have discussed in the House, the Conservatives will accept control orders as a means of giving the security services the powers they need to deal with these threats. I also think that it is incumbent on him, on behalf of the official Opposition, to confirm that his election manifesto will include the pledge to repeal control orders, if that is indeed his position. The House deserves an answer to that question.
	On the basis of these proposals, we do not feel that we need a further Privy Council review or an additional review committee, and it is total nonsense to remove the annual review of the Act. To be quite frank, the amendment passed in the other place is an offence against the excellent current reviewer, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the work he is doing in carrying that through. To suggest he is not doing good work in this matter was a serious mistake by the Lords, in my opinion. I am determined that we insist on our disagreement with the amendments so as to maintain the existence of the independent reviewer. [Interruption.] I suggest that colleagues look at what he said in the debate in the House of Lords. He did not agree with himself being abolished in the way suggested by this particular proposalnot surprisingly, because he has done a pretty good independent, non-politically partisan job, to which we should all pay respect and tribute. That is why I am determined that we insist on our disagreement with the Lords amendments and thus maintain the existence of the independent reviewer.
	I hope that the House will insist on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32 and that it will accept the Government amendments in lieu. I also hope that the House will disagree with Lords amendment No. 33D and agree to amendments Nos. 33A to 33C.
	When the hon. Member for Beaconsfield responds, I hope that he will set out what leads him to believe that a magic solution will be found by the end of March next year that will allow agreement to be reached on all these things. Even more, I hope that we will hear whether he accepts that his proposal to end control orders in Novemberor even at the end of March 2006would encourage terrorists to locate in Britain, because I believe that that would be the effect of his actions. That is why I commend both our amendments and the statement of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the House and hope that hon. Members will support our amendments this evening.

Dominic Grieve: I am sorry to hear the Home Secretary's tone this evening. It was characterised by his assertion a few moments ago that due to some activity of the House or the Opposition, individuals would be released from Belmarsh next week. Nothing could be further from the truth. The release will happen whether the Government get the Bill or not. It would not need to happen if the Government renewed their part 4 powers, but as it was said in court today, their response to the bail applications made under part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has been shambolic, so they have got themselves into their present difficulties.

Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Home Secretary has already told us that he does not propose to use control orders to hold those people in custody?

Dominic Grieve: Indeed, and those people will not even be subject to home detention. The statement made by the Home Secretary started with a complete inaccuracy.
	The first thing that shines through from the Lords amendments is that Members of the other place have tried to achieve a consensus in a conciliatory fashion. How else can one interpret the amendment tabled by Baroness Hayman proposing a sunset clause extending to 12 months? We were happy to accept that amendment as a gesture to the Government, even though, I might add, it is unnecessary if they are being sincere and wish to get on with further legislation.

Andrew MacKay: Did my hon. Friend note that the Home Secretary walked through the Division Lobby earlier today to vote for a sunset clause to help Sinn Fein-IRA Members? Is it not ironic that he rejects a reasonable sunset clause to help civil liberties, but supports a sunset clause that aids and abets terrorists?

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend.

Peter Luff: On the subject of sincerity, has my hon. Friend had the chance to study the words of the Home Secretary that I showed him during the suspension? They read:
	Our strategy should therefore be to insist that the bill does not diminish the liberty of the subject but amplifies it; that the true liberty of the subject consists in the freedom to walk the streets unmolested  . . . and that far from circumscribing the liberty of the subject this will enlarge it  . . . Paradox works well and mists up the windows, which is handy. 'The loss of liberty is the price we pay for freedom' type thing.
	My hon. Friend will realise that they are the words of the fictitious Home Secretary in Alan Bennett's excellent play The History Boys. They were intended as satire, but now sound eerily and worryingly prophetic.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed. Government Members yesterday suggested that the need for security was so great that any infringement of liberty might be tolerated. We disagree profoundly with the Government on that point.
	The situation regarding the sunset clause is quite clear. The Government know from the comments of many of their Back Benchers, including those whom they persuaded to support them yesterday, that the Bill is without doubt a major infringement of civil liberties and is poorly drafted. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made that comment, even though, in her loyalty, she came back to support the Government. The Home Secretary should therefore accept that the legislation should have a finite limit. Without such a limit, I have no confidence that the Government will ever review the measure properly. We will simply be asked to rubber-stamp its renewal, and there will be no creative thinking about how we resolve our present dilemma and maintain civil liberties while fighting terrorism adequately.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Once again, the Opposition have made much of the opinions of people who have formerly held eminent positions. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his proposals fly in face of the contemporary opinions of the security services and the police? If his measures are accepted, they will fly in the face of that advice and jeopardise the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman's generalised comments are not very helpful, as we need to look at specific points. Is he suggesting that the security services have said that a sunset clause defeats the object of the Bill? It plainly does not, and it is nonsense to make that assertion.

John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend, like me, worried not only about the attack on civil liberties but about the fact that the Bill does not guarantee the security of the British people? The Government know that there are hundreds of terrorists out there, but we now know that not a single one will be charged or locked up.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. That is a serious problem, and it is one reason why we tabled a provision on the director of public prosecutions, as there should be proper consultation to ensure that wherever possible prosecution is pursued. That is another area that the Government have dismissed entirely.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. To pursue his point about the security services and the police, they are asking for control orders. What is the Opposition's policy on control orders? If they have no intention of using them, will they include such a statement in their manifesto?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is not listening to the debate. However much I dislike the prospect, it is within the Government's power to obtain control orders within a few hours. What is preventing them from doing so is the purest petulance. The Government have insisted that there should be a distinction between derogated and non-derogated orders.

Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a huge divide in the House on a number of issues, but that the crucial issue is the sunset clause? There may be only one Government Member who believes that the measures fall short of the threat but, having listened to the Home Secretary, I accept completely that the threat is of a nature that we have not faced before. I am therefore worried about whether the measures proposed by the hon. Gentleman are adequate to deal with the threat. Without a sunset clause, we can never go back to the drawing board to consider measures that are adequate to the challenge. I am worried that a review in 12 months' time will merely provide approval, not a basic analysis of what is required, given the challenge that the Home Secretary said we face.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's sensible comments. If the Government accepted the sunset clause in the spirit in which it is intended, the House could start to make real progress. The reluctance of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to accept a sunset clause on an issue of huge importance to civil liberties does them no credit whatsoever.

Frank Field: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Government accepted the sunset clause, the official Opposition would drop all their objections to the remaining measures, knowing that we could return to the drawing board after the election?

Dominic Grieve: The Government should go further and I shall explain why. I simply do not understand why they chose to make an issue of the distinction between derogating and non-derogating orders. During the debate last week, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar made an exceptionally good speech in which she explained why the distinction between derogating and non-derogating orders should be removed. She also highlighted why judicial review proceedings are inadequate for non-derogating orders. Her comments then were absolutely correct and I accept that she accepted less than that yesterday out of loyalty. I have yet to understand the rationale behind the Home Secretary's insistence that the distinction must be maintained.
	The answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is that we insist that the Government move on the issue.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that when I referred to judicial review I was addressing the question of an appeal on an unsatisfactory basis. I have been substantially reassured because the judge will now come first in non-derogating control orders. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misrepresent what I said a week ago.
	The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that a sunset clause is a precondition for conversations between parties about future legislation. That is utter rubbish and the public should understand that. Conversations have been offered here and now by the Home Secretary, irrespective of the sunset clause, and he has promised new legislation next year. The Opposition have every opportunity to contribute to better future legislation on this matter. The sunset clause is a silly, political tactic.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady is naive if she thinks that in the absence of a sunset clause we will get any joy from this Government on a proper review of this legislation with its draconian clauses and consequences.
	I have here the comments made by the hon. and learned Lady on 28 February and they could not be more crystal clear in their condemnation of a review system as opposed to one where the judge makes the initial decision. I invite her to read her words.

Alan Beith: As someone who was, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), given the opportunity to contribute to legislation in the Newton committee, I remind the House that the only sunset depended on the committee's report being debated. When the all-party committee produced a set of alternative proposals, the Home Office did not have to consider adopting them because the legislation continued. Only the sunsetting of the legislation by the House of Lords led to the Government taking up the committee's proposals.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, indeed. Baroness Hayman was a member of that committee, which may explain why she places so little faith in the Home Secretary's assurances. I am bound to say to the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that she should not place much faith in those assurances.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: No. I want to bring my comments to a conclusion.
	The Government have also objected to all the other proposals made in the other place to improve the Bill. I do not understand the Government's continuing insistence on reasonable suspicion rather than the balance of probabilities. There is no justification for that stance particularly as, again, it offers a different test from that in derogating orders.

Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: No. I am sorry, but I must make progress.
	There can be no logical reason for that distinction. The Government's refusal to have a full Privy Council review is extraordinary. If the Government want the Bill, they can have it. It can be on the statute book later tonight, but a little reasonableness would be helpful. We have been subjected over the past week to vitriol, bullying and, now, petulance. The petulance extends so far that No. 10 appears to be briefing that there will be a general election on this issue unless the Opposition give way.
	This is an issue of conscience, and should be so for every Member of this House. Nothing will induce me to allow the Bill to pass in its present form and every hon. Member should consider carefully the duty they owe to their constituents in respect of ensuring that liberty is maintained in this country. In particular, the Government's refusal to accept the sunset clause highlights the fact that they are untrustworthy on this legislation, and the Home Secretary has done nothing to dispel that distrust this evening. I ask the House to support the Lords amendments and to enable this matter to come to a rapid conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Marshall-Andrews.

Chris Ruane: Oh, good!

Robert Marshall-Andrews: We have another half an hour, and I will not speak for very long, because other Members may wish to speak, including the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)I am sure that he has a serious and interesting contribution to make.
	My point concerns review by the judiciary of derogating and non-derogating clauses. I take the view that the House was seriously misled yesterday and when we debated the matter before. This is a central issue. The Government make a distinction between derogating and non-derogating issues; I do not accept that distinction, but the Government make it. In respect of derogating issueshouse arrestthe Government provide that the court will have full powers to look at the facts and to come to its own conclusions. So far, so good. I would reluctantly accept that, if it were the case for all the orders.
	Non-derogating orders are not mere chaff in the system. They will involve people's right to work, to associate and to move, and their being tagged and electronically monitored. They are as close to the pass laws in South Africa as it is possible to get, and they are a serious matter. The question that the House must ask is whether there will be proper judicial review of those proceedings. The House has been told on several occasions that there will be, because the court will be allowed to consider the orders, but it may do so only on the basis of judicial review. The basis of judicial review does not allow a court to reopen the case and look at the facts on which the order was made. It is worth repeating that point time and again. Assurances to the House, whether from Front or Back Benchers, and from people who should know better, are simply wrong. The House must take that on board.

Vera Baird: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: There is no distinction to be made[Hon. Members: Give way.] After my next few sentences, I shall give way.
	There is no distinction to be made between whether such an order gets to a judge on appeal or as of right. The same process will be appliednamely, that the judge will apply the constrictions of judicial review. That is what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) objected to initiallyrealistically and properlyand I supported her. She now supports the change that has been made to the Bill, but it is precisely the same test, of judicial review. The House should understand that no judge will be able to look at the facts of the matter. It is essential to take that on board when hon. Members vote on whether the non-derogating orders should be accepted as they stand.

Vera Baird: Is my hon. and learned Friend giving way?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us clarify the situation. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman giving way?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet completed his remarks. I call Vera Baird.

Vera Baird: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. and learned Friend knows well that if a judge is asked at the outset to consider whether there are reasonable grounds on which one can, as Home Secretary, suspect that a person is engaged in terrorism, the only possible way to reach a judgment is for the judge to look at the evidence and form a view. My hon. and learned Friend must not mislead the House about that.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: That intervention would be valid were that the test, but it is not. As my hon. and learned Friend well knows, the test is whether the judge feels, not that the decision was wrong based on the facts, but that it was obviously flawednot that the decision is wrong, or that the judge disagrees with it, but that it was obviously flawed. That is the test of judicial review.
	I am not entirely sure what obviously means in the present circumstances. Can a judge say, Well, I thought the decision wasn't obviously flawed. Having looked at the background, I think it was flawed, but initially it was not obviously flawed? What is a judge to make of the provision? I have not the remotest idea. It is bad to pass a statute that affects the liberties of our citizens based on such an amount of doubt. I simply ask hon. Members to take that on board when making their decision on this particular issue.

Win Griffiths: I have already admitted that I am not a lawyer, but I have looked at clause 7, which states:
	The function of the court on an appeal . . . is to determine whether any of the following decisions of the Secretary of State was flawed
	(a) his decision that the requirements of section 1(1)(a) and (b) were satisfied for the making of the order.
	Clause 1, which will become section 1, empowers the Secretary of State to make an order
	if he . . . has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity.
	It seems to me that the judge cannot decide whether the Secretary of State's decision was flawed without knowing the basis on which the Secretary of State made that decision.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Precisely. [Laughter.] I hope that hon. Members realise that this is not a flippant point but a serious one. Of course the judge must look at the reasons. Having done so, a judge may think that he would not have acted in the same way, or that what the Secretary of State did was wrong, or that his decision was wrong. Nevertheless, what he must conclude is that the decision was obviously flawed, and he must do so applying the principles of judicial review. Judicial review comes from the prerogative writsancient writs in this countrywhich were always and deliberately set out on the basis that judges should not question decisions taken by the Executivequite right, too. Hear, hear; I agreethey should not. That is the basis of judicial review. That is its whole life and mainspring in the legal system.

Edward Garnier: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on trying to explain to people who will not have read the Bill before they vote for it precisely what they will be doing. Judicial review involves looking at the process, not at the substance of a decision. What hon. Members will do blindly, if they do not listen to him, is pretend that the review is a proper form of appeal. It is not. Please, will he continue to say what he has to say with greater force and clarity?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am not sure that I shall accept that invitation, generous though it was. I make no apologies for being a lawyer. There are charlatans in my profession, as there are in every profession. Equally, we can number in my profession some of the finest politicians, alive and dead. They have made their contribution in their time, and it has often been in the field of civil libertyprecisely the subject that we are discussing. It is in that spirit that I make this contribution.
	I do not wish the House to be misled into passing legislation and believing that it is giving to judges a power that the Bill manifestly and obviously does not give to them, will never give to them and should not give to them, under judicial review, because to extend judicial review is, by definition, to diminish the power of the House and its Ministers. That is why judicial review exists, and why it is so heavily circumscribed. To suggest that we are giving judges the power to strike down Ministers by judicial review isI am sorrycasuistry, and should be treated as such.

Vera Baird: rose

Robert Marshall-Andrews: No, I have already given way. [Hon. Members: Go on!] As I am encouraged by those surrounding me, of course I will give way.

Vera Baird: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend accepted that he was outnumbered. There must be a real danger that the public watching us now think that we are two QCs arguing about how many angels one can get on the head of a pin. For the avoidance of doubt, and since my name has been used and, I think, been used slightly badly, may I make it plain that a test whereby a judge of the High Court will consider, on all the evidence, whether there is reasonable cause to suspect that a person is engaged in terrorism is a satisfactory test, as far as I am concerned.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: So my hon. and learned Friend has said. Of course we are talking about law. The Bill makes law. It is impossible to avoid that. It is making immensely bad law, and that is why we must talk about it. I have said what I said, and shot my bolt on the issue, and I hope that some hon. Members, at least, will take on board what I say in the spirit in which I am saying it.
	I come to the sunset clause; the time has now been extended to a year. What we are giving birth to here, if we give birth to it at all, is a very malformed animal indeed. In saying that, I enjoy the support not only of people who have fought the Bill throughout, but of people like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar and many commentators who believe that the Bill is seriously malformed. The Bill cannot be resuscitated and cured, by definition. What we need is a rebirth. We need a new Bill and we need it quickly. The period of a year, which has been proposed in another place by a noble Lord of my party, is worthy of support. One year is enough. We need to bring back in a year not this old malformed Bill, resurfaced and rehatched, but a new Bill to deal with the problems of terrorism, which are undoubtedly real.

David Heath: It is a great misfortune that again we have such an abbreviated debate on this important Bill.
	I should like to think that the Home Secretary and others in the Chamber recognise the high level of agreement between parties, between Benches and between Houses. We all agree that there is a serious threat of terrorism. We all agree that there is a need to take appropriate measures to combat it. Most of us agree that, regrettably, control orders are probably part of the apparatus that is required. We have been prepared to accept that there needs to be an emergency process that enables the Secretary of State to apply for those control orders, even on the grounds of reasonable suspicion. Those in another place who have considered the Bill have done an extremely good job of tabling amendments that work and make the Bill better.
	The Home Secretary should have no doubts about whether he will have his Bill, because he has it already. The Bill is workable, and it is for him to take it. It is not good enough to suggest that either a recalcitrant upper House or an obstructive Opposition in this Chamber is stopping him having what he needs in order to combat terrorism effectively.
	Which extraordinary suggestions from the other place does the Home Secretary propose to remove this evening? He proposes to remove the power of the Lord Chief Justice, rather than the Lord Chancellor, to make rules of court. A few weeks ago, we considered the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor, and it is absurd to suggest that as a matter of principle the Lord Chancellor must make rules of court rather than the Lord Chief Justice.
	The Home Secretary has asked us to reject the contention that article 6 of the European convention on human rights should be addressed on the face of the Bill. That is ridiculous, but he insists that he will not budge. He could help the House this evening by making it explicit that the process will not accept evidence gained by torture under other jurisdictions, but he has not made that expressly plain.

Charles Clarke: I have given that exact assurance in this House, and to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Home Secretary.
	I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for accepting Lords amendment No. 42D, which is extremely important because it sets out the rules by which possibly exculpatory evidence could be disclosed to defendants or their representatives. Although that mechanism would be imperfect in normal criminal proceedings, it is a great improvement.

Charles Clarke: May I take the opportunity to confirm that that is the case, and that we are ready to examine further ways to improve the process involving special advocates?

David Heath: We are making significant progress in that area, and more progress remains to be made.
	It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary persists with the artificial distinction between derogating and non-derogating orders. Indeed, many Labour Members have said that there should no difference in legal process between those two types of order.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: No, we do not have time. The hon. Gentleman voted for the timetable motion, which prevents debate. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.]
	There is no logical reason for a separate judicial process between derogating and non-derogating orders, and I still hope that the Home Secretary will agree that matter with us.
	On the standard of proof, we have a significant disagreement, and the Home Secretary has not yet established to my satisfaction why the balance of probabilities is an inappropriate test to decide whether someone should lose their liberty. I believe that that test is appropriate, but he has told me that the security services require that the test should be based on reasonable suspicion rather than the balance of probabilities. That simple assertion is not enough, and I invite him to provide us with evidence that will allow us to understand why he believes that the balance of probabilities is not the appropriate standard of proof.
	The Home Secretary has asked us to remove the reference to the Director of Public Prosecutionswhich, incidentally, is in the wrong part of the Billand argues that the matter should be put before a chief of police. However, we have argued for years that the prosecuting authorities rather than the police should decide whether to prosecute. Why is he taking that retrograde step, and why on earth should that be a sticking point?
	The Home Secretary has asked us to remove the provisions for a Privy Council annual review. Notwithstanding the concerns about the future employment of my noble Friend Lord CarlileI hope that Lord Carlile or someone else will have the opportunity to continue as an independent reviewerthe Privy Council is a useful mechanism for examining the performance of the legislation in action.
	The position on the sunset clause is the biggest absurdity of all. We have a Labour peerBaroness Hayman, previously a Member of this Houseputting forward the eminently sensible suggestion of a sunset clause, to come into effect after a year, for this legislation, which is acknowledged on all sides to be temporary, emergency and not entirely well considered.

Chris Bryant: That is not acceptable.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary positionI am happy to read him into the record, as he is so desperate to get into itthat that is not acceptable. So what is not acceptable? We are told that it is unacceptable for the legislation to cease to have effect after a year, but acceptable for the House to reject it after a year as a renewal. We are told that it is not acceptable for the House to improve the Bill, but acceptable for it to reject the Bill. In any case, we are told by Baroness Scotland that by that time we will have new and better legislation, because, as she virtually admitted to the other House, this legislation is defective and we can do betterin other words, there is no need to worry about the renewal because something else would already be on the statute book. Yet if there is no need to worry about renewal, why is there any need to worry about a sunset clause? There is no logic in that position. It is unacceptable for the Government to hide behind it as a pretext that that is a bar to their having their legislation.
	To say that to accept a sunset clause is to send a signal to the terrorist is the worst argument that I have ever heard. That is to say that al-Qaeda operatives all over the world are waiting to hear whether we are going to have a sunset clause or a renewal facility on 31 March next year, and if we make the right decision they will be satisfied and put their bombs away.
	This is an absurdity. The Government have it within their power to have their legislation tonightthey will have it within an hour or two if they take the necessary steps. They have moved a very long way in several areas; we are grateful for that. They have a couple more steps to go, and then they will have their legislation. But if they do not take those stepsif they believe that the sunset clause is the sticking point that prevents them from having their legislationnot only will they look absurd, but we can only conclude that they did not actually want this Bill in the first place.

Vera Baird: So that nobody is misled by anybody on either side of this House, let me clearly set out my understanding of the position. The test in the Bill is very plainare there reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is engaged in terrorism? The only way of assessing that is to look at the evidence and evaluate it. The judge must act as the gatekeeper for the Home Secretary in evaluating the evidence and concluding whether his proposal is within a range of reasonable responses to that evidence. If he finds that it is outside the range of reasonable responses, he will quash it and it will never get off the ground.
	There is an additional element that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)and he is my friendmissed out. Since the prerogative writs of the 17th century, the element of proportionality has come in as another important test that is, again, based on the evidence. That came in with the Human Rights Act 1998. What changed my mind was the putting of the judge first and requiring him to be responsible for these decisionsto gate-keep. I am satisfied that the judges will develop an excellent jurisprudence because of that responsibility, which will ensure the maximum amount of fairness for the individuals involved.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: rose

Vera Baird: I want to move on because I have less time than my hon. and learned Friend took.
	The Tories and the Liberal Democrats must not pretend that a sunset clause is the key to negotiations for new legislation because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he will introduce a new Bill.
	Let me deal with the burden of proof, because it rears its head high.

Clare Short: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Vera Baird: I am sorry but I will not. [Hon. Members: Give way.] I do not have time[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Lady is not giving way.

Vera Baird: I, too, know when I am outnumbered.

Clare Short: In a previous speech, my hon. and learned Friend said that the Bill was cobbled together, flawed and worrying. Surely the point of a sunset clause is that we have something, and also more time to consider the matter and reach greater consensus. Is that not a good idea?

Vera Baird: I do not think that I used the words that my right hon. Friend attributed to me, but I know what she means. No one is 100 per cent. satisfied that the measure is perfect, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he will introduce a new Bill next year, in any event. Surely we ought to[Interruption.]
	May I deal with the burden of proof? All hon. Members appear to believe that that is important.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Vera Baird: I have only three minutes and my hon. and learned Friend has already taken up a good deal of time.
	It is my clear view that hon. Members are misguided in concentrating on the burden of proof. The distinction between reasonable cause to suspect that someone is involved in terrorism and it's being more probable than not is not worth dying in a ditch for. Hon. Members should concentrate on firming up the admirable concessions that the Home Secretary made yesterday on giving defendants a better deal by reorganising the special advocacy system so that they are likely to get to know more about their case.
	Differences in the burden of proof pale into insignificance next to the concessions that my right hon. Friend has made. If hon. Members are interested in justice for defendants, they should concentrate on those concessions so that they can be reduced to paper to ensure that the special advocate system will be examined and that defendants get a better deal. That is truly the right way forward. It was clear in yesterday's debate that, if Conservative Members take a realistic approach to justice for defendants, they will find my right hon. Friend helpful. He plainly suggested that yesterday. I therefore conclude that that is the obvious route to take. If Conservative Members do not take it, they must simply be playing politics because there is a clear way in which to improve the Bill now.

Kenneth Clarke: I spoke about judicial review yesterday and I agree with the speech that the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made earlier and with the speech that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made on the same subject previously. Anyone who believes that a case has been made in which the merits of the issue are put in the hands of the judge has been misled.
	With respect, I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that the difference between reasonable suspicion and the balance of probabilities is purely academic. No other part of the law is treated in that way. There will be cases in which there are plenty of grounds for suspicion but one feels that the man is probably innocent. If the Bill is allowed to proceed, someone in that position will be subject to all its rigours.
	Let me consider briefly the advice of the Security Servicethe new point on which the Home Secretary placed particular stress. Surely he could share a little more of the Security Service advice on the burden of proof and on the sunset clause. The only argument that I have heard advanced about the burden of proof is that the Security Service insists on it. I find that unlikely. If that is Security Service advice, it must have peculiar lawyers. I am sure that we shall revert to the point later and I should like the Home Secretary to let us know whether the Security Service says that we should have a balance of probabilities, not reasonable suspicion.

Vera Baird: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Kenneth Clarke: NoI apologise.
	On the sunset clause, is the Security Service saying that it is not acceptable for us to give ourselves 12 months in which to produce a new Bill, and do the Government believe that they have to press on with it for that reason?
	The Downing street spokesman on behalf of the Prime Minister gave the genuine reason this afternoon. He totally prejudged this evening's proceedings. Downing street has instructed the Home Office to come along with all those reasons. The spokesman said that to amend the Bill further would send the wrong message to the terrorists and the police and security services, and that that applied not just to the sunset clause but to the burden of proof. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) exposed to ridicule brilliantly, I think, the idea that this is a message to terrorists. Everybody in the House is prepared to accept that there will be a fairly draconian Bill to protect the public if
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [9 March].

Question put,
	The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 226.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
	Lords amendments: 27B, 31B and 32B
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords Amendments 27, 31 and 32 but proposes the following amendments in lieu: (a), in page 12, line 45, leave out sections 1 to 6 and insert this Act.
	(b), in page 13, line 3, leave out those sections and insert this Act.[Ms Blears.]
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) should not be using a mobile phone in the House; she should really know that by now.

The House having divided: Ayes 327, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 27B, 31B and 32B disagreed to.
	Amendments in lieu agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No.33D
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment and proposes amendments Nos. 33A to 33C in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 217.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 33D disagreed to.
	Amendments 33A to 33C agreed to.
	Lords Reasons: 38A, 39A, 40A, 42D and 42E.
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords Nos. 38, 39 and 40, insists on its amendments Nos. 42A and 42B, does not insist on its amendment No. 42C, agrees to Lords No. 42D and disagrees with Lords No. 42E.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 219.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 42E: Ms Hazel Blears, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. David Heath, Mr. John Heppell and Kali Mountford; Ms Hazel Blears to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.[Mr. Heppell.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bell to be sounded.

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They insist on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of the Lords amendments, for which disagreement they assign their reasons. They do not insist on their remaining amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, and they agree to the remaining Commons amendments on which the Commons had insisted. Copies of the Lords reasons are available in the Vote Office, as are the Government's propositions relating to the message. All Government proposals will be debated together.
	Lords reason: 1D

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment No. 1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O, does not insist on its amendment 37D, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 37Q to 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8 and insists on its amendments 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment No. 17 and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss Lords reasons 8A, 12B, 13B, 15B, 17N, 22B, 27E, 28B, 31C, 32C, Government motion to insist c., Government amendment (a), Lords reason 33E, Government motion to insist c., Government amendments (a) and (b) and Lords reason 37U.

Hazel Blears: The first amendment relates to the making and judicial supervision of control orders, including the standard of proof. The effect of my amendment is to require an inter partes directions hearing to be held within seven days of the court granting the Secretary of State permission to issueor, as the case may be, confirminghis non-derogating control order. The purpose of my amendment is to provide yet another safeguard in the procedure to ensure that the individual concerned will be involved fully in the proceedings at the earliest possible stage. So, there would now be three stages: an application for permission from the Secretary of State; a prima facie ex parte hearing followed by an inter partes directions hearing to see how the matter might be disposed of; and then a further inter partes full hearing. My amendment would therefore provide for an additional safeguard of further intervention into that process. That would give all parties an early opportunity to consider how best to deal with questions of evidence, disclosure and the appointment of a special advocate if required.
	As well as that amendment, we want to insist on our previous position with regard to the standard of proof. There are a couple of additional points that I want to make to the House concerning standard of proof, because it is a very important matter. I want to make it clear that these are preventive orders, not punishment, which is important to the standard of proof issue; that we are talking about an assessment of intelligence rather than necessary evidence of proof of fact; and that we are talking about a risk assessment process. I want to draw to the House's attention the statement of Lord Justice Laws when he was considering the A case in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I do not think that this quote has been used before. He said:
	the nature of the subject matter is such that it will, as I have indicated very often, usually be impossible to prove past facts which make the case that X is a terrorist. Accordingly, a requirement of proof will frustrate the policy and objects of the powers . . . the target of the policy includes those who belong to loose, amorphous organised groups.

Dominic Grieve: rose

Hazel Blears: I just want to finish this point. Both SIAC and the Court of Appeal accepted reasonable suspicion as the right level of proof in those cases. It is very important to make that point.

Dominic Grieve: I have to say to the hon. Lady that far from not having heard that quote before, it has been bandied around almost ad nauseam. If that is her objection, she could argue that the derogating orders that she is making, which will be made on the balance of probabilities, should not in fact be made on the balance of probabilities at all. Why does she accept that derogating orders should be made on the balance of probabilities, yet persist in this frankly cussed refusal to have the balance of probabilities on non-derogating orders?

Hazel Blears: Even at this early hour of the morning, I am attempting to be moderate and measured, and I hope that the debate will be conducted in that fashion. As we have made clear on several previous occasions, we have accepted the balance of probabilities for derogating orders because deprivation of liberty is a severe sanction. However, we do not accept it for non-derogating orders because there is a distinction between restrictions on liberty and deprivation of liberty. That is a clear position.
	The orders, as well as being preventive, not punitive, are about anticipating and disrupting terrorism. They are an assessment of risk, and I genuinely believe that hon. Members are trying to constrain a preventive framework in a traditional criminal justice system, which is about proof of events after the fact, evidence and an adversarial mechanism. I believe that hon. Members have not taken seriously the fact that we are trying to anticipate and prevent rather than simply prove things after the event, which happens in the traditional criminal justice system.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister answer the question that I asked the Home Secretary last time we debated the matter? He suggested that the decision was made on the advice of the Security Service. Is the Security Service advising that we have that burden of proof rather than the balance of probabilities in the case of non-derogating orders? Can she give us an insight into that aspect of Security Service advice that we are said to be ignoring?

Hazel Blears: Yes. The Security Service is concerned[Hon. Members: No.] Let me answer[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering serious matters and our proceedings on them are best conducted without sound effects. We want to hear whoever has the Floor. I call Ms Blears.

Hazel Blears: I am making it clear

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You rightly said that we must listen to the person who is speaking, but the person who should answer the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is the Home Secretary. Will he please speak and give us the answer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I have called the Minister and she has the Floor.

Hazel Blears: I am happy to confirm that our advice from the Security Service is that, if we use balance of probabilities, we will not be able to secure orders on some of the people about whom it has significant concerns.

Edward Garnier: The Minister tried to distinguish between a total deprivation of libertyhouse detentionand a restriction on liberty, that is, a non-derogating order. Does she not understand that the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Government introduced, makes it clear that any such conduct could amount to a penalty under that legislation? [Interruption.] The Minister may snigger, but we are considering human rights and it makes no difference whether the Government are depriving a citizen of all his liberties or merely some. It still constitutes a penalty. Surely the higher not the lower standard of proof should apply.

Hazel Blears: The hon. and learned Gentleman is experienced enough in the law to know that article 5 of the European convention on human rights makes a distinction between restrictions on and deprivation of liberty. We have proceeded on that basis.

Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: I should like to move on to[Hon. Members: Give way.] I shall give way.

Menzies Campbell: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way at this early hour, as she rightly described it.
	I have listened on several occasions when she and the Home Secretary have tried to draw a distinction between derogating and non-derogating orders. Does she not agree that the consequences of derogating and non-derogating orders are penal? The only difference is a matter of degree. If it is a matter of principle that the standard of proof for derogating orders should be balance of probabilities, why is it not a similar matter of principle for non-derogating orders?

Hazel Blears: No, I think that I have said on several occasions that these orders are not punishments, they are about prevention. I have also explained that there is a proper reason for the distinction between the two orders set out in article 5.
	I now wish to move to the second area of concern of the Lords and my amendments in relation to having an independent reviewer rather than a committee of Privy Councillors. My further amendment shortens the period in which the first report of the independent reviewer must be submitted to nine months, and provides explicitly in the Bill for his report to include the implications for the operation of the Act of any proposal made by the Secretary of State for changing the law relating to terrorism. That has two effects. First, it would ensure that the renewal debates that we will hold in the House will be informed by the report on the operation of the whole Act by the independent reviewer. On that basis, our debates will be more informed. Secondly, it would include in the Bill the Home Secretary's commitment that the independent reviewer should consider specifically in his report the implications for the operation of this Act, once passed, of any new proposals or legislation on counter-terrorism.
	We have already said that we will bring forward proposals and have pre-legislative scrutiny. We now want to make sure that the independent reviewer can consider that as part of his review by including that explicitly in the Bill. We want to ensure that his report is done within nine months, so that when we come to the annual renewal after 12 months we have a proper, informed debate in full knowledge of his review.

John Gummer: If, as the hon. Lady rightly says, it is necessary for us to have this detailed report and be absolutely sure that the legislation is working properly, why does she not feel at the same time that the House could be assured that it would have new legislation that took all that into account? Why does she not therefore give way by making sure that we have a sunset clause?

Hazel Blears: I am afraid that the sunset clause would not ensure that.
	My third amendment would ensure that in relation to our annual renewal, the Secretary of State would be required to consult the independent reviewer of the Act before making an order to renew the powers to make control orders for up to a further year. [Interruption.]
	We believe that the provisions we are putting into the Bill to review the operation of the Act are right and appropriate, but my amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the independent reviewer of the Act before making his order to renew the powers. We think that this[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. The House must come to order. We need to hear this debate.

Hazel Blears: We think that this is a sensible idea. At that point, we will have the benefit of the independent reviewer's report, and we will have any recommendations that he wants to make on the way in which the Act is operating when we consider whether we will renew those control order powers. I propose to reinforce that position by making it a specific requirement on the Secretary of State to consult him before making the renewal order.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
	We now have a series of checks and balances in the Bill. We have a three-monthly report by the Home Secretary to Parliament about the measures taken. We have an annual renewal of the legislation. If we have derogated, we have an annual renewal of that derogation. We have an independent review, and as part of that the operation of the whole Act can be considered, including the appeal provisions. We have promised new legislation next Session, with pre-legislative scrutiny.

Alan Beith: Before the hon. Lady completes this detail, will she confirm that when asked in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said that the Security Service had not advised the Government that it would be wrong to have a sunset clause in the Bill?

Hazel Blears: Yes, I can confirm that. [Interruption.] I can also confirm that we think that the checks and balances in the Bill, with the independent reviewer, are sufficient and in fact better to achieve our purposes.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: I am not giving way.
	We have said that we will produce further legislation to establish whether we can try to prosecute more people in the circumstances that we are discussing, but there are a small number of people whom we cannot prosecute through our traditional criminal justice system because of the danger to human sources, and the danger involved in revealing sensitive intelligence techniques. If there is a small number of people whom we cannot prosecute, we must have a system that enables us to control their activities so that we protect the safety of the country. I think that it is pretty clear now

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In our earlier proceedings, the Home Secretary gave me an explicit assurance that habeas corpus would apply in these circumstances. Is it not something which

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but an attempt to pursue the debate.

Hazel Blears: I was trying to emphasisealthough I do not think I need to do sothe importance and severity of the measures that we are considering. Let us suppose, for example, that we have intelligence about someone who is a real and serious threat, and that the information we hold might require us to reveal human agents or sensitive intelligence techniques. There is a real danger for us there. The question for us tonight is this: in those circumstances, what do we do? If we cannot prosecute, we must have a framework that enables us to control people.
	We have a real choice: either we have control orders, or we allow people whom we cannot prosecute to walk free. Opposition Members have not come up with any suggestions. We need to know whether they support the idea of control orders. I think the answer is very clear: I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), in particular, opposes control orders in principle, and if we do not have control orders we face the very real prospect of

Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard Ministers confirm that the security services had not given advice on the sunset clause. According to Wednesday's Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
	we are not prepared to accept . . . the sunset clause . . . it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1510.]
	Have you received any indication from the Prime Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of an inclination on his part to come to the House and explain that statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no such notice, and that continues to be a matter for debate.

Hazel Blears: It is the advice of the security services that they want us to have control orders. Let me say this to Opposition Members. If there are people who are a real and serious threat to this country and we cannot prosecute them because that would mean revealing sensitive and dangerous intelligence, what do we do with them? At this stage, we have no indication that Opposition Members are prepared to support control orders that will protect our national security. I think that it is vital that we secure this legislation tonight and establish a framework enabling us to strike the right balance between national security and individual liberty.
	These are real matters. This is not an academic debatewe are faced with real problems.

Robert Smith: The hon. Lady says that she wants the control orders. If she were willing to accept the amendments from the other place, she would have the control orders.

Hazel Blears: I want to make sure that the system of control orders is practical, that it works, that it has the proper effect and that it has the support of the security services. On that basis, I ask the House to support our amendments and to reject the Lords reason.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill

Lords reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, further considered.

Dominic Grieve: Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have an example of how the Government lack any frankness in their dealings with the House. The question that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked about what the Prime Minister said classically illustrates how the Government gloss the truth to suit their convenience. Instead of coming to the House, asking frankly for measures deemed necessary and engaging in proper debate, the Government spend their entire time fast-tracking the process, putting out spin, deceiving the public and then asking us to rubber-stamp their activities.
	Let us examine the three issues of contention that now appear to remain. First, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety has told the House that she cannot accept that the distinction between derogating and non-derogating measures should disappear and she proposes instead a most deliciously complicated further tier of bureaucracy in an attempt to avoid the issue. Let me tell the Minister that as a recipe for further legal challenges, it would take some beating. I ask myself why the Government are going to such absurd lengths to avoid doing the sensible thing that the other place has asked fortreating derogating and non-derogating orders identically.
	If what the Minister says is right, the derogating orders that the Secretary of State is keeping as an important reserve power that he may have to use in extremis, are, on her own analysis, completely valueless. I simply do not understand why the Minister keeps on refusing to do the simple and straightforward thingindeed, the very thing that the Government originally gave the impression to the other place that they were going to do, which is to treat derogating and non-derogating orders identically. There is no explanation for that other than the Government's absolute determination not to be seen to be amenable to reason. If that is an example of the Government's common sense that they want to convey to the public, it takes some beating. There is no justification for the distinction.
	Let me remind the Minister what the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said about non-derogating orders:
	I do not wish to labour the point, but the penalties that can befall someone under clause 1 are extraordinarily intrusive and can transform a person's life. They include obvious interferences with freedom of movement, family life and freedom of association. Someone may be ordered not to speak to any member of his family and he may be told to move house, stop doing his business or job or to change his job. He has to agree in certain circumstances to tell people in advance what his movements will be.
	She went on to say:
	That is a very serious interference with liberty.[Official Report, 28 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 744.]
	She was correct and the Minister is wrong. I am sorry that the Minister has suborned the hon. and learned Lady. We stand on the basis

Vera Baird: Do I look suborned, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The hon. Gentleman has to remember that if these powers, which can be intrusive exactly as I said, cross over into an intrusion on article 5, they will never be granted because the judge is now at the front. It would be an unlawful order and the judge would not grant it. Checkmate on that one, I think.

Dominic Grieve: That is a fascinating comment, but it is not what the hon. and learned Lady said last week. She cannot escape her own analysis, which was absolutely correct and which the Government would have done well to heed. If the Government would see sense and treat derogating and non-derogating orders identically, they would be doing justice to the people subject to the orders. They would also solve their current problem and go a long way to resolving all the issues before the House tonight.
	I turn now to whether a review should be prepared by an independent reviewer or a group of Privy Councillors. It is obvious that a proper and full review by Privy Councillors would be better than one by a single, independent reviewer. The latter would merely be a document handed to the Government, while the former would be a major document handed to Parliament for consideration. Furthermore, under the regime proposed by the other place, the reviews would take place at regular intervals and enable the House to monitor events.

Charles Clarke: indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve: Does the Home Secretary wish to intervene?

Charles Clarke: I should be happy to. The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to note that the independent reviewer will report to Parliament, not the Government, and that Parliament would debate his review. The amendment before the House means that when the renewal order is considered every year, it will be based on the independent review given to Parliament. That review will not be some Government thing on the side, as Parliament will examine it. As always, he simply does not understand what he is talking about.

Dominic Grieve: I understand that the last Privy Council report, chaired by Lord Newton, was ignored by the Government. I suspect that the Government do not want a Privy Councillors' report because they know that they will not be able to ignore it a second time. That is why I think that the House should demand it. There is no reason for not having such a report. The Government's insistence on their position is another example of them dancing on the head of a pin for no good reason. The House should reject that stand.
	Finally, we come to the sunset clause, about which there is a fundamental difference between Opposition and Government. This Bill must be tolerated, but it is very badly draftedand I might add that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar thinks that as well, as do many other Labour Members.
	The Bill was passed in haste, without consultation or normal Committee and Report stages. This morning, we have had about nine minutes to consider important Government amendments. The Bill should die soon, and be replaced with something new that is passed in ordinary form. That is totally different from what the Minister proposes. The mechanisms that she proposes will mean that the legislation can be renewed again and again. It is not good enough to suggest that the two approaches are equivalent.
	If the Government were honest, they would say, like the Prime Minister, that the Bill is for the medium term and that the country will have to bear it for the next 10 or 20 years, if this Government remain in office. Alternatively, the Government should accept the sunset clause. The sunset clause is a thoroughly sensible measure that would ensure that the House does its duty before 12 months are out. The Government should look at the alternatives to a measure that the Minister knows undermines civil liberties.

Charles Clarke: indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve: I give way to the Home Secretary, so that he can explain what he was mumbling.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for this opportunity, as I had not intended to intervene. I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman, who is sitting next to the Leader of the Opposition. Given his view of this matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman commit his party to repealing this legislation in his election manifesto?

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary knows that we consider this legislation poorly drafted and bad, so the first thing that we will do when we get into office is to find a means of replacing it with something that allows the security[Interruption.] Look, the Minister and his predecessor have spent the last 12 months with their heads buried in the sand in respect of the recommendations of Lord Newton. There are alternatives and they need to be considered, but the Government have not given the slightest indication of even engaging in that process. There is the question of prosecuting. There is the question of using intercept evidence. There is a question, if nothing else, if I may say to the Home Secretary, about putting in the things that at the moment he refuses to have in this legislation. The sooner we can get rid of control orders and this type of measure, the better. [Interruption.] Yesthe sooner we can get rid of measures such as control orders, the better for this country.

Tom Harris: rose

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose

Dominic Grieve: But as I said to the MinisterI said it two weeks ago and I say it again[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The House must come to order. We must hear both sides of the argument clearly.

Dominic Grieve: As I have said before to the Home Secretary, we are prepared to accept that control orders may in the short term be necessary, but at the moment we do not have the input from the security services that the Minister has, which is why we have spent the last week trying to improve the orders to remove those aspects that we consider intolerable. The Minister has not been willing to engage in that process, and I greatly regret that. He is showing no signs of doing so tonight.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On control orders specifically, the very fact that the security services and the police forces are asking for this measure seems to suggest that, however imperfect, we are trying to deliver a vehicle that is fit for purpose. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that in nine months we scrap the vehicle entirely, as opposed to looking at it, revising it and renewing it. I suggest to him that the Government have at this stage of the morning bent over backwards to try and comply with some moderate way forward on this and he is now setting his face against it, and on Monday morning we may well have terrorists walking the streets of this country.

Dominic Grieve: The alleged terrorists are going to be walking the streets tomorrow morning, irrespective of whether this legislation is passed or not and that is a measure of the Government's failure to address this issue over the last 12 months.
	It is a straightforward issue. If the Government believed that civil liberties were important in this country they would consent to a sunset clause, if only to come back in 12 months' time and explain why, reluctantly, they had to continue with these measures. The fact that they will not taints the entire way in which they have approached this matter. I am left with the unpleasant sensation that the Government[Interruption.] It is unpleasant, because I would much rather have had the Government persuade me of the necessity of these measures. I am left with the unpleasant sensation that the Government have been playing the cheapest form of politics with this matter, and we on this side of the House will vote to uphold the Lords amendments.

David Heath: In my experience it is very rare that we have a rational debate at this time in the morning, and I think that the experience of the last few minutes has proved that point. It is unfortunate that yet again we are having to face an abbreviated debate on a matter of huge importance, and that we seem to be making so little progress in what ought to be a substantial debate on how we can improve the Bill.
	The Minister says that no one has come up with any other proposal to meet her requirements. May I invite her to read Lords amendments Nos. 1, 8 and 12Lords amendments ad nauseam that do the job that she has asked Parliament to do, which is to provide an adequate response to the agreed threat of terrorism and an adequate response to the needs that the security services and the police have identified? They provide her with the control orders that she has asked for, and they provide a court procedure that is adequate to meet the needs and the balance that the Home Secretary has suggested is the essential part of balancing the threat with the commensurate judicial procedures. All those things are in place, and she and her right hon. Friend have rejected them, so we are left debating the same topics, time and again.
	We have made some movementI accept that, and the Minister knows that I have welcomed itbut we are left with these clear distinctions between our positions. Let us be absolutely clear what they are. First, we have the arbitrary distinction between derogating and non-derogating orders, which the Government perversely insist on, despite the advice of not only those in another place who have looked at this and who have a very clear view that there is no such arbitrary distinction, but Labour Members sitting behind her now who have indicated their complete dissatisfaction with that arbitrary distinction. So there is no distinction, yet we have a different judicial process.

Dave Watts: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of the Lords or lawyers that we are talking about will be held accountable for any terrorist threat?

David Heath: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that every Member of this House and every Member of the other House will be held responsible if we get this law wrong. If he believes that any Member of this House or any Member of the other House does not hold that as their prime responsibility, he is very mistaken, and I challenge him to find anyone who does not. The fact is that if we get it wrong, and if we produce bad law that creates resentment among many communities in this country, we are creating the circumstances in which terrorism breeds and increasing the dangers to the people of this country. That is what he needs to remember.

Kevin Brennan: On the sunset clause, Baroness Hayman, who moved the 12-month clause, has said in another place that, as the elected House has rejected it, the unelected House should now give way. Does the hon. Gentleman and his party agree with that?

David Heath: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has understood the fact that we are elected. This is the elected House, and we reject the view of the Ministers.

Kevin Brennan: rose

David Heath: We reject the view of the Government that there should be no end to the suspension of habeas corpus and the substantial departure from our traditional laws.

Kevin Brennan: Just to clarify this for the hon. Gentleman, Baroness Hayman, who moved the 12-month sunset clause, has said that the unelected House should give way at this point to the views of the elected House. [Interruption.] That is what she said. Does he agree that that should be the case and that the elected House should have its wayyes or no?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful with this. He is quoting in aid a Labour Member of the other House who made a perfectly sensible proposition that was agreed by 250 peers and disagreed to by but 100 peers. That view has been reinforced by the most recent vote of the House of Lords, and she abstained. I believe she was right.
	I say again to Ministers that I welcome the small amount of movement this evening. Let us get back to the serious content of the amendments. I welcome what the Minister said about the independent reviewer, who will have a crucial role to play in the process. As she knows, we would like a Privy Council Committee in addition to the independent reviewer, because we believe that that could do a better job of deriving the legislation we need to fight terrorism effectively. It has been admitted from the Dispatch Box in another place that this measure is not adequate, that we need new laws to fight terrorism properly, and that that will be the first responsibility of an incoming Government, of whatever persuasion, after the general election. It is an essential and urgent task. That makes it even more bizarre that the Government are prepared to accept this inadequate legislationdescribed clearly as inadequate from the Dispatch Box in another place and implied by Ministers in this place, as welland that there is no proposal to make that legislation come to the end of its natural life next year so that it can be replaced by better legislation.
	Let us look at amendment (a), which the Minister did not greatly amplify[Interruption.] All those Members who jeer and say that they will always reject a sunset clause should note that 33A begins:
	Except so far as otherwise provided under this section, sections 1 to 6 expire at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
	The House has gone quiet. That is a Government amendment saying that the Act will expire. The proposed new clause goes on to qualify that provision in ways that I find unacceptable, because they do not actually do the job. But let us not pretend that there is a great divide of principle between the Government and the Opposition on what happens to terrorism legislation. The Government have given the game away.
	I close with this point. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the frank, and hardly surprising, comment made by the Lord Chancellor in another place. He was asked directly whether the security services had recommended that the Bill should have no sunset clause, and he said Noin frank contradistinction to what the Prime Minister said on Wednesday at the Dispatch Box in Prime Minister's questions. It was nonsense when the Prime Minister said it then. The Lord Chancellor has let the cat out of the bag. There is no argument that we should not have the clause. We should. That is why it is right that the amendments should go back to another place[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking her head. Perhaps we should have an answer. Will she tell us? Have the security services recommended that or not?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Hazel Blears: I have already made it clear[Interruption.] Yes. The security services have told us that they want control orders. They have not said that they want a sunset clause[Interruption.] I say to the House that the Government are proposing the legislation. We are trying to make sure that it does what the security services want us to do, which is to provide control orders that will protect the national security of this country. That is what the Government are trying to do. We are not saying that every clause we propose is demanded by the security services, but I am saying that the security services want us to have control orders. That is why I was asking the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) whether the Conservatives support control orders.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As page 74 of Erskine May makes clear,
	it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.
	In the light of what has occurred, when the Prime Minister gave a clear account that the security services had said that it was against the sunset clause, yet we now know from the Minister that that is not the case, clearly the Prime Minister must come here and apologise to the House. He must correct the information[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Chair has no power to command the presence of any particular Minister at any particular time. I suggest to the House that these are matters of judgment, which will continue to be[Interruption.] Order. They will continue to be at the centre of debate. These are matters for the House to decide.

David Heath: The House can draw a very clear moral from this: never believe a thing that the Prime Minister says he is told by the security services. We have too much experience of this now.
	The Government are entitled to have their legislation to fight terrorism, but they must have the right legislation. That is what all of us who are sensibly engaged in this debate are determined to achieve by the end of this evening or tomorrow. I believe that another place will have another go at this. Eventually, the Government will see sense and we will have that sensible legislation.

George Foulkes: I want to make one point. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) seemed deliberately to misunderstand the points made in interventions by my hon. Friends. Earlier, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke about a serious interference in liberty. I went through to hear the debate in the other place and the [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the House that levity has its place, but probably not at six minutes past 2 in the morning.

Hon. Members: Elevation!

George Foulkes: What we are seeing from Opposition Members is the effect of the grape, rather than anything else. I remind the House[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's remark helped the situation. Let us get back to the central issue of the debate. I say to the House, let every right hon. and hon. Member be heard properly.

George Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke about a serious interference in liberty. This is a serious matter. As I said, I went through to hear the Lord Chancellor, and I want to make just one point. The Lord Chancellor pointed out to the other place that it had asked the Government to make five changes in the Bill. The Government had accepted four of those five changes80 per cent. of what the House of Lords asked us for. The Lord Chancellor went on to say, Accept the primacy of the House of Commons. For a third time, the House of Lords rejected the primacy of the House of Commons. That is not a serious interference in liberty; it is a serious interference in democracy.

John Gummer: Earlier in our debates, the Home Secretary made a perfectly reasonable plea, which was that in these serious matters of counter-terrorism, the Government have a right to ask for the trust of the House of Commons in trying to come to their conclusions. That is why I say to the Home Secretary that it is with the heart of that trust that we are concerned tonight. The sunset clause is so important because we cannot trust the people who are asking for our trust.
	I merely say to the Home Secretary that for him to pray in aid the security services, and for it then to be proved that the security services have not asked for one of the key things that he implied they had asked for, and that the Prime Minister said they had asked for, is to remove the trust of this House.

Charles Clarke: I have in front of me the Hansard report of the references that are being discussed. The Prime Minister said:
	I am afraid that we
	meaning the Government
	are not prepared to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause or the other amendment voted for by the House of Lords, and which the Conservatives in the House of Lords backed, to change the burden of proof. That would not be wise; it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police, and I am simply not prepared to do it.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1510.]
	That is what he said. The security services and the police have advised us categorically and clearly, as they should do, on measures. They have advised us quite explicitly that we should not change the burden of proof for non-derogating control orders. The reason why they have given that advice is very simply because they know, as do we, that there are certain people who are dangerous to the country, but could not be controlled if such a situation existed.

Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is this morning debating matters of the most fundamental importance to our country. They relate to the protection of our country from the threat of terrorism, and the fundamental liberties of the people of this country. It is essential for the future confidence in this House, and the political system as a whole, that these debates take place on the basis of the truth.
	On Wednesday, in answer to a question from me, the Prime Minister said that it would not be wise to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause, or the other amendment to which the Home Secretary referred, because that would be
	contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1510.]
	It is now crystal clear that that is not the case. Is it not essential, in the interests of the body politic of this country, that the Prime Minister now come to the House to withdraw a statement that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety this morning, and the Lord Chancellor earlier, said was not an accurate statement of the position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given the Leader of the Opposition some latitude to put that on the record. However, I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chair has no power to command a Minister to attend the House[Interruption.] Order. I do not need the advice of hon. Gentlemen. The Chair cannot intervene to cause a Minister to appear. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point, but there is nothing that the Chair can do to advance it.

Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to read out verbatim the statement to which he referred, in every respect, and in particular to ask him to read out the Prime Minister's observation that the suggestion of a change to the burden of proof was not recommended by the security services in such a way? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out the whole Hansard quotation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now clearly moving from a point of order on to a point of debate, but I am mindful that we are still attempting to listen to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I think that we would do better to return to the mainstream of the debate.

John Gummer: In column 1510, the word either refers to both those issuesthat cannot be gainsaid. However, even if there were a slip of the tongue and that was not quite what the Prime Minister meant, if he respected the seriousness of the issue he would be here to listen to our debate and defend the way in which he had expressed himself. The problem is that on previous occasions the Prime Minister has appeared not to tell exactly the truth in certain circumstances.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that there is a more felicitous way in which the right hon. Gentleman could try to make his point.

John Gummer: I regret my infelicity and I withdraw any indication that the Prime Minister meant to say something that was untrue. I shall use more felicitous phrasing: there are many people both outside and inside the House who have misunderstood what the Prime Minister said, including the Home Secretary.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you both for clarification and for seeking a withdrawal of the comment by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I hope you agree that it is important to the House that he withdraw unequivocally the suggestion that the Prime Minister made that interpretation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No one should accuse any right hon. or hon. Member of untruthfulness or deceit. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has withdrawn any suggestion that he was making such an allegation. What is at issue is a matter of judgmentthere is no question but that it is a matter of contention, and is not something on which the Chair can rule.

John Gummer: When a misunderstanding of such importance has occurredindeed, it has clearly arisen on both sides of the Houseit must be put right. That becomes more necessary the graver the issue. That is why I want to answer a comment made by the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Everybody in the House is trying to do a very difficult thing and protect the nation against terrorism while at the same time upholding human rights so that terrorism does not grow among individuals who have legitimate grounds for believing that their human rights may have been invaded.
	It is legitimate for us to disagree about how to deal with these things, and it is therefore proper for the Government to make sure that if their judgments turn out to be wrong, we have a ready opportunity to put that right. That is why the sunset clause is so important. It gives the House an honourable opportunity: if what is done for all sorts of reasons in haste and with many misunderstandingsI am not making any allegationsturns out to be less than the best, we will assuredly and without peradventure have a chance to get it right. People who accuse Conservative Members of being anything other than staunchly opposed to terrorism are wrong. We are so strongly opposed to terrorism that we want the best legislation that we can get, we want to make it work and we want a Prime Minister who can be trusted not to be misunderstood by his own Home Secretary.

Edward Garnier: This debate would have been better informed if we had had longer to debate the serious issues before us

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can only say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am sorry that the debate had to end on a climactic note.

It being one hour after commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [9 March].
	The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary invited us to read the passage from Hansard that led to the previous exchanges. This is what the Prime Minister said[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. I will hear this point of order.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister said:
	I am afraid that we are not prepared to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause or the other amendment voted for by the House of Lords, and which the Conservatives in the House of Lords backed, to change the burden of proof.
	He said either and or. He continued:
	That would not be wise; it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police, and I am simply not prepared to do it.
	That was clearly referring to both the amendments.
	There is another quotation[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be very clear[Interruption.] Order. This is a very serious matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be very clear about making a point of order that the Chair can deal with.

Michael Howard: I have to lay the foundations for it. There is another quotation from Hansard. At column 1511, the Prime Minister said:
	We have made concessions that we think are reasonable; we will not make those that are against the direct advice that we are receiving.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1510-11.]
	The Prime Minister is in the precinctshe voted in the previous Division. Is there any precedent for a Prime Minister who is present in the precincts of this Palace, and against whom such accusations have been made, to fail to have the courage to come to the Dispatch Box[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order but it only adds to a point of order that has already been made this evening. Everybody in the Chamber, and those outside, will have heard the point of order. The Chair has no responsibility for bringing Ministers or Prime Ministers[Interruption.] Order. I repeat that the Chair has no responsibility for bringing Ministers or Prime Ministers to the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is on the record and the House must make its own judgment about it.

Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given your ruling of a moment ago and the definite ambiguity, to say the least, that exists, would it be in order for you to request that the Prime Minister or the Government place the available evidence in the Library, so that an objective judgment can be formed since, clearly, the Prime Minister is not coming to the House to explain?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only repeat what I have already said. The Chair does not have responsibility for those matters and cannot insist on them. The Chamber will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's points, and those inside and outside it will have to make their judgment about what has happened this evening.

Hazel Blears: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear to the House[Interruption.] It is an important matter for the record of the House. The words that the Leader of the Opposition read out are followed by several statements by the Prime Minister. He said:
	The point of principle is on the control orders and the burden of proof.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1511.]
	He goes on to say[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Hon. Members: Where is he?] Order. I am reluctant to stop the Minister in mid-flow but all those matters

Hazel Blears: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All those matters are becoming a continuation[Interruption.] Order. There are serious matters before the House and it behoves us to behave properly when we discuss issues of such gravity. All that is happening now is an extension of the previous debate. [Interruption.] Order. I do not intend to take any more points of order from either side of the House. I shall move to the next Division.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [9 March].
	Lords amendments: 27, 31 and 32.

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32 and on its amendments Nos. 27C and 27D in lieu and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 207.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Hazel Blears: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just want to make it clear that when the Prime Minister was responding[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said earlier that we are debating a very serious matter. I have already heard two points of order from the Opposition side of the House[Interruption.] Order. The Minister wishes to make a point of order and must be heard.

Hazel Blears: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I simply want to make it clear that when the Prime Minister was responding to the issue about the sunset clause, he said:
	I do not agree with the sunset clause, for this simple
	[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to repeat myself[Interruption.] Order. The House must listen to the Minister.

Hazel Blears: The Prime Minister said:
	I do not agree with the sunset clause, for this simple reason: it is important that we send a clear signal now that this legislation is on the statute book and will remain on the statute book.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1511.]
	He made no reference to the advice of the Security Service. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House[Interruption.] No, I am not taking any more points of order. It would be a good idea if we moved on to the next Division.
	Lords amendment: 33D

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House disagrees with Lords amendment No. 33D and insists on its amendment No. 33C in lieu, does not insist on its amendments Nos. 33A and 33B and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Sitting suspended.
	On resuming

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords insist on their amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement. They insist on their disagreement to the amendments proposed by the Commons on which the Commons had insisted, and they disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu for which insistences and disagreements they assign their reasons. Copies of the Lords reasons are available in the Vote Office, as are the Government's propositions relating to the message. All Government proposals are being debated together.
	Lords reasons: 1F and 37W.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment No. 1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments Nos. 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O, does not insist on its amendment No. 37V, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 37Q to 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8 and insists on its amendments Nos. 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment No. 17 and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss Lords reasons 8B, 12C, 13C, 15C, 17P, 22C, 27F, 28C, 31D, 32D and Government motion to insist c. and Government amendment (a), and Lords reason 33H and Government motion to insist c. and Government amendments (a) and (b) and Lords reason 37W.

Charles Clarke: It is perhaps appropriate that we hope to complete the passage of the Bill today, on the first anniversary of the tragic Madrid bombing. That is a sad reminder of the reality with which all Members of this House and the other place must deal when considering these matters.
	I am proposing three amendments to the Bill. The question of the making of non-derogating control orders, the burden of proof and the judicial supervision of non-derogating control orders relates to Lords reason 1F. My amendment provides that when the Secretary of State applies to the court for permission to make a non-derogating control order, he or she must supply the court with a copy of the order that he or she proposes to make.
	We have been having a debate on the question of the Privy Council review versus an independent reviewer, which relates to Lords reasons 27F, 31D and 32D. My amendment provides that the independent annual reviewer must comment on the extent of the Secretary of State's use of the urgency procedure in relation to the making of non-derogating control orders in his report. That is an effort to meet the concerns expressed on my side of the House about the use of the urgency procedure and to ensure that that matter is properly in the public domain.
	The third amendment that I propose deals with the question of annual renewal versus a sunset clause, which is covered by Lords reason 33H. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the director general of the Security Service before making the annual renewal order.

William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not.

William Cash: rose

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary has indicated that he is not going to give way at the moment.

Charles Clarke: I am afraid that I am eerily familiar with the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make. Indeed, he made it to me in the Lobby only a few minutes ago. I think that I would like the debate to proceed on the issues before the House rather than his specific questions.
	The story of the night both here and in the other House is that of a series of constructive moves made by this House. I shall list only the issues raised overnightnot the ones raised previously. We have proposed using the affirmative procedure in respect of the rules of court. We have proposed providing a wider role for the independent reviewer so that he or she can look at the whole Act. We have taken steps to ensure that the independent reviewer's report will be available so that the annual renewal debate on the Act can be proper and informed. We wish to include in the Bill the requirement for the Secretary of State to ask the independent reviewer to comment specifically on the implications for the Act of any future legislation on terrorism.
	We have proposed putting a specific requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the independent reviewer before laying an order to renew the control order powers each year. We have proposed measures to include additional protection for the subjects of non-derogating control orders in the Bill and specifically to enshrine existing procedures to ensure that exculpatory material will be disclosed to the court and the special advocate in all cases, and also to the subject of the order, unless that is contrary to the public interest. We have moved amendments to allow the disclosure of unused material unless that is contrary to the public interest.
	I have read that long list of the constructive moves made by the Government and the House to try to meet concerns expressed throughout the whole House and in the other place because it shows that we want to find constructive solutions. I contrast the approach of the Government and the Commons to the zero movementthat is literally the caseof the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats who control the other place. In 12 hours, there have been two rounds of consideration, but there has not been any movement at all. There have been two separate sessions in the Lords with zero response. Theirs is a stick-in-the mud response in which they have dug their heels into the sand and prevented the elected House from carrying out its proposals.
	The country needs a Bill that prevents terrorism and protects our people. Our constituents, who elect us to the House, need that protection, and that is why we are addressing the issue in this way. I believe that it is time for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the other place to respect the considered views of the elected Chamber. I urge the House to support the amendments and I urge Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in the other place to give us their support.

Dominic Grieve: I am sorry that the night has not brought the Home Secretary good counsel. I rather hoped that when we reassembled this morning a greater degree of clarity and common sense would prevail. Instead, we have had a repetition of the same old mantras. The Home Secretary said that he is making a major concession, but it appears that that means giving a copy of the order to the person concerned. He knows that the distinction that he continues to try to make between derogating and non-derogating orders is wrong and absurd. The logical conclusion of his argument is that derogating orders are valueless, as was explained by the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety last night. There is no reason why non-derogating orders should not be subject to the same protection as derogating orders. Having had his moment of clarity, it is extraordinary that the Home Secretary is still unable and unwilling to give a logical explanation of why he will not concede that point, which we believe is of great importance.
	The liberty of the individual must be protected, miscarriages of justice must be prevented, and if this anti-terrorism legislation is to work and command public approval in all communities in this country it must be seen to be transparently fair. It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary is prepared to tolerate a system in which there is inherent and manifest unfairness. The explanations that he has offered to justify it are frankly gobbledygook. We are told that there is a major concession on Privy Council reviewthere is not. The extent of the urgent procedure may be looked at by the independent reviewer, but there has been no attempt by the Home Secretary to engage with the value and merits of a full Privy Council review.
	Finally, there is the issue of the sunset clause. The Home Secretary does not seem to have grasped the significance of the sunset clause to Parliament as a whole. This legislation is unusual and draconian, and it would be wrong to put something on the statute book that has the capacity to become permanent. There is no reason why the sunset clause should not be included in the Bill, and the mechanisms that the Home Secretary is giving himself to renew the legislation by order are fundamentally flawed and wrong. If the Home Secretary thinks that there will be movement in the other place on that point, he is profoundly mistaken, because it is of such importance.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when the Government last came to us, in 2001, with emergency powers to deal with terrorism, there was tension between the two Houses and a deadline to meet? However, a resolution was achieved because two principles were accepted by the Governmentfirst, that there should be due process throughout, and secondly, that there should be a sunset clause. When the Government accepted those proposals, there was movement and both Houses came to an agreement.

Dominic Grieve: I could not agree more. I am a great believer in sunset clauses generally, because there is much stale legislation on the statute book. This legislation requires a sunset clause. It is ridiculous that we should consider allowing legislation passed in such haste to remain on the statute book for an indeterminate period.

Charles Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman likes sunset clauses so much, will he propose his own personal sunset clause by answering the question I asked him last night? Will he put in his manifesto his intention to repeal the legislation before us?

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary is suffering from severe cognitive dysfunction. I explained our position to him last night, and I am sorry if he cannot now remember it. I can only assume that his general anger and frustration got the better of him and he was not listening to a word I said. That is why I appear to be repeating myself, and I shall try to avoid doing that.
	The Home Secretary said that no concessions had been made in the other place. That was not my impression. When the debate started, we wanted a sunset clause of eight monthsand there were strong reasons for that. A concession was made and on a very sensible Labour amendment, we accepted a sunset clause of 12 months. So it is wrong for the Home Secretary to say that no attempt has been made to reach agreement. I am here, if the Home Secretary wants to talk to meany time he likesas are all my hon. Friends.
	Fundamental issues remain to be addressed, but the Home Secretary has not even attempted to do so.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Home Secretary that the sunset clause gives the House of Commons the power to control the legislation? The House of Lords is in fact enabling this House to protect its own future in controlling this legislation.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, indeed. Much was said yesterday about the primacy of this Chamber, but this is a parliamentary matter, for the whole of Parliament. If we do not allow the other place to carry out its functions, and ignore what it says, we end up with bad legislation.

Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend also agree that a sunset clause would enable the House of Commons, for the first time in this debate, to add in a Committee stage to examine the detail of each and every clause, which hitherto we have not been able to do?

Dominic Grieve: Of course it would, and it is a scandal that we were prevented from doing so. There was no reason why we could not have done so. We have sat through the night now and we could have sat through the night last week, but the Government would not allow us to do so. We might then have had a better chance of achieving consensus.
	The Government have consistently denied this House any opportunity to reach consensus, which makes a complete mockery of our procedures.

Dennis Skinner: If the Tories are so keen on sunset clauses, and in view of the fact that I was here during the 18 years when they were in power, can the hon. Gentleman tell me why no sunset clauses were included in the rail and coal privatisations? Why did the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty not include sunset clauses? I could go on for another 20 minutes. The truth is that the Tory Opposition are using unelected Members in the other place to overturn the will of hon. Members in this House, who are directly elected by our constituents.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman's latter comments were on message, but I suspect that his initial remarks were off message, as far as Labour Members are concerned. First, those laws are good laws. [Interruption.] The Labour Government adopted them and did not reverse them. If those laws are so bad, why have the Government not taken the opportunity to deal with them? Secondly, those laws do not touch on the liberty of the subject, which this Bill does, and they were not timetabled with knives, which this Government have used ruthlessly.

Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because of what he has said about the liberty of the subject. Some of us divided this House in 1971 on internment without trial, because we felt that incarceration without trial was wrong. The Tory party pushed the measure through and maintained it throughout its time in government. Why should we not be suspicious about this apparent Damascene conversion?

Dominic Grieve: First, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not mention that legislation. Secondly, the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) took a principled stand on that matter, which the passage of time has probably proved to have been entirely correct. The House would do well to reflect on his example.

Clare Short: This view may not be fashionable on these Benches, but these proceedings are bringing this House into disrepute. In the other place, the party majorities reflect voting across the country, and the exaggerated majority in this House undermines the House's democratic authority.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Lady is right, which is why it is so foolish for hon. Members to recite mantras about the primacy of this House. Parliament is supposed to operate with the participation of both Chambers. The upper House reflects the fact that some aspects of this Chamber are not purely democratic. The system can work and should work, if only the Home Secretary and the Government would listen.

Lembit �pik: On many occasions during the past eight years, the Government have reasonably introduced legislation relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland that explicitly includes sunset clauses, and we renew such legislation every year on the basis of a debate. Does he agree that there is no principle preventing the Government from introducing a sunset clause on this occasion? Out of bloody mindedness, they refuse to apply a consistent policy, as they have done on Northern Ireland matters.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the oddest features of the process has been the Government's complete unwillingness to engage in real dialogue with the Opposition parties.

Charles Clarke: indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve: That is the truth. The Government came up with an idea and presented the Opposition parties with a fait accompli. They then said, Take it or leave it. There was no discussion in January, when the Government could have held a creative conversation to try to achieve common ground. They did not do so, which is regrettable, because I do not think that we would be here today if that had happened.

Tom Harris: There is an important point of principle here, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. This elected House of Commons has repeatedly, over the past day and the past week, made its position clear on some fundamental points, and the unelected Chamber has, on similar terms, made its point of view very clear. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his position and that of the Conservative party that where the elected House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords disagree, the view of the Commons should prevail?

Dominic Grieve: The upper House has engaged itself as a revising Chamber, and it has put forward suggestions for improving the legislationthat is exactly what it should be doing. It is now being subjected to a battle of attrition by the Government to try to whittle down the overwhelming view expressed there, not only by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers but by Cross Benchers and even some of the Government's own peers. That is the extent of the problem that the Government face, and until they start to listen, they will continue to have a problem. All that I can say to the Home Secretary is that I hope that during the passage of the morning he may come to have a little more sense, because he can have this Bill and the protections that it offers, and at the same time, civil liberties can be protected; at the moment, they are not. The House should support the Lords amendments.

Rob Marris: At first, one could characterise this Bill as a nasty little Bill because we live in a nasty little world. I abstained on Second and Third Reading because I wanted the Home Secretary to make concessions. To my mind, he has done so, and I have been happy to vote with the Government when the Bill has recently been before the House.
	There are currently three sticking points. The first sticking point is the sunset clause. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) tells us that a sunset clause is necessary because otherwise the Bill, when enacted, could go on and on. He seems to forget the fundamental constitutional principle that one Parliament cannot bind another, that we will have a general election within the next 18 months, because constitutionally we must, and that any subsequent Parliament can look at this legislation again.
	The second sticking point is the question of Privy Councillors conducting the review. I remind hon. Members that myriad independent reviews in the past were not carried out by Privy Councillors, and they were in no way the lapdogs of Government. If we think back to the previous Government, we had the Scarman inquiry, and the Scott inquiry into Matrix Churchill. Just because a review is carried out by an independent person does not mean that the inquiry is a stitch-up from the beginning.
	The third sticking point involves non-derogating control orders and the burden of proof. I can see why the Conservatives argue for that principle, but it has not been a principle in the past and is not a principle in many parts of our criminal law. If someone is remanded in custody, that is because there is a reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence. They can be remanded in custody for weeks. Under the previous Government, as some Members may recall, there was the case of Mr. Osman, who fought extradition from this country because there was a reasonable suspicion that he had carried out criminal activities abroad. He was incarcerated in this country for years under the previous Governmentit did not seem to be a principle to the Conservatives then.
	Most hon. Members have been with a constituent, as I have, and discussed an issue that appears to be have been resolved in the conversation, when the constituent says, And another thing, so one has a discussion about thatbut then the constituent says, And another thing. That characterises the Opposition's position. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have made no concessions, yet the Government have made them as part of the debate in the Chamber and in the other place, and I respect my Government for that. I shall continue voting with them because I do not wish to be in a position whereby the House of Lords dictates to us and does not engage in proper concessions. Such engagement is the way in which a mature society should resolve those issues.

David Heath: I welcome the tone, if not all the content, of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is time we regained that sense of seriousness which, I am afraid, has not characterised some of our debates in the past few hours.
	We must remember the context of the debate. The Home Secretary was right to remind us at the beginning of his remarks that today is the anniversary of an appalling terrorist atrocity in Madrid. We are all trying to ensure that such an atrocity cannot happen in the United Kingdom.

Claire Ward: You're not.

David Heath: I find that remark deeply offensive. We are trying to find the best way of stopping terrorists and dealing with them effectively.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: No. [Interruption.] I will not take an intervention. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not giving way at the moment. The House should come to order, remember that we are discussing serious matters and listen to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor.

David Heath: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, as I said at the outset, it is important that we remember exactly what we are about. We are trying to findI hope through consensusthe best way of protecting the citizens of this country and ensuring that they are subject to fair laws. I respect many of the comments that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made, but it is wrong to say that no attempt has been made to find that consensus.
	We have understood the Home Secretary's arguments and accepted that, although control orders are deeply unpleasant, they will be part of the architecture of fighting terrorism in this country. We have accepted, because it was appropriate, that the emergency arrangements were a necessary part of the construction of those control orders. We have sought to find any number of ways of constructing an appropriate legal framework in which those control orders could be made. The other place has played a significant part in that dialogue and we have made progress. The House should accept that.
	Volume is no substitute for content, and we should examine what the House of Lords says. It does not state that it wishes to oppose the Government's proposals. Far from itit wants to work with the Government. It insists on its amendment, which we propose to delete today, on a matter that is deeply significant not only to people from abroad whom we might not like the look of, but to British citizens and the way in which they will be treated in our courts. It is important to read the Lords reasons. Reason 1F states:
	Because the Lords remain of the view that reasonable suspicion is too low a test; that the authority to conduct a prosecution should be the Director of Public Prosecutions and not the chief of the relevant police force; and that all control orders should be subject to the same procedure before the courts.
	There are many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches who agree with all those propositions. I see some of them nodding now.

Kevin Brennan: What is the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal DemocratI emphasise the word democratas to whose view should prevail if there is ultimately an honest disagreement between this House and the unelected House?

David Heath: We are engaging[Hon. Members: Answer.] I am answering the question. We are engaged in a process of dialogue that I hope will result in justice for the people of this country. The honest answer is that, ultimately, the House of Commons must of course be the prime House. I have no quarrel about that, and nor would any of my noble Friends at the other end of the Corridor. I return to what they are saying: it is not that the House must not have the anti-terrorism proposals that the Home Secretary has put forwardbut there is a perfectly proper argument that reasonable suspicion is too low a test. We heard the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in an earlier speech, saying that we do not even accept that for a parking ticket for British citizens, yet we are prepared to accept it for deprivation of liberty. I take that seriously, and I hope that Members on the other side of the Chamber take it seriously. They would have done so in previous years and previous debates, so I hope that they still do.
	The second component is that the prosecution should be conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that principle. He has chosen, for reasons that are not entirely clear, to say that he wishes to consult the chief of police rather than the person who is charged with making a prosecutionthe Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not understand that. I do not understand the matter of principle involved in that. I would have thought that it is all a matter of proper dialogue and negotiation.
	The third point relates to the common procedure for these orders. Again, we have heard cogent speeches from well-respected Government Members saying that there should be exactly that, so let us not pretend that there is a matter of principle between the two sides of the House on that point.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman, in his usual way, is putting cogent arguments to the House. He is setting out concessions, to which I have adverted, made by the Government and the Home Secretary. I may have misunderstood him, but I have not understood him to be putting forward any concessions made by his party during the debating process of the last two weeks. He is setting out principles of his party, and I respect that. What concessions has his party made during this debating process?

David Heath: Because the hon. Gentleman asks the question in a sensible way, I will do my best to answer. A whole series of amendments have come forward from the Home Secretary that have not returned to this House. He may have noticed that we are now down to three propositions as the areas of differentiation. Initially, we were very concerned, as I said, about the whole concept of control orders. We have accepted that. We were concerned about reasonable suspicion for an emergency control, as a matter of principle. We have accepted that there are conditions in which that will be the appropriate test. Clearly, therefore, we are making progress in those areas.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has been pestering me for two days, so yes.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has been making the point that all control orders should be treated precisely the same, which is a principle to which their lordships are still holding. Does not he accept that many in the House believe that it is wholly different to impose a control order that deprives someone of their liberty by putting them under house arrest and to impose one that merely says that somebody is not allowed to work in a nuclear establishment or that they will have their passport removed?

David Heath: Let me take the hon. Gentleman's point at face value. What is proposed in these control orders is a whole spectrum of controls, ranging from minimal matters to serious restrictions on the liberties of the individual. There is no sharp dividing line. At one end there is what has been described as home arrest; at the other there is merely reporting to a police station, or something of that sort. Between the two, there are what can only be construed as serious deprivations of liberty, which could fall short of a derogation. I think it entirely reasonable to have a common judicial process.

Douglas Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that non-derogating orders are capable of wholly destroying the lives and livelihoods of the people with whom they interfereand, moreover, the lives and livelihoods of their friends and families? They are extremely draconian measures.

David Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. They can be. The problem is that there is such a range of potentialI was going to say penalties, but we cannot really call them penalties, because they are not penalties for a crime committed; they are penalties imposed in the anticipation of a crime.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: No. I think I have given way enough.
	I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda this: it cannot be described as a minor deprivation when someone cannot work, cannot leave a particular area, cannot consort with friends, cannot telephone anyone and cannot use the internet. All those orders are on the palette available to the Home Secretary. It cannot be said that all of them are inconsequential matters for the individual, and that the orders should continue for as long as the Home Secretary may determine. I am sorry, but I do not believe that those are inconsequential matters.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will, for the very last time, let the hon. Gentleman explore his point.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful, because this is one of the first times that we have explored the issue since yesterday. Surely the point is that any control order that contravened article 5 would automatically be a derogating power, and consequently would be struck down by the judges.

David Heath: I understand that point, but the fact that we have a spectrum enabling a series of non-derogating controls to become derogating controls, and therefore be subject to annulment, emphasises my argument for a common judicial process. There is a perfectly sensible debate that we could have. We should not be characterised as obstructive Members of another House trying to deprive the Government of their Bill.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: Not now. Others want to speak.
	Two matters of process are before the House, and one matter of principle. The matter of principle is what I have just been talking about, and on that I still believe that we can reach an accommodation. The two matters of process are the Privy Council review of the legislationwhich I think is a sensible outcome and one to be desired, particularly given the Government's new amendment to provide an independent reviewerand the sunset clause.
	The sunset clause is a matter of practicality: it is a protection against the continuation of what is, in anyone's book, a hastily constructed and dangerously draconian measure. It is an emergency measure, which has not been properly considered by the House of Commons or anyone outside it. I believe that it is sensible to provide a sunset clause enabling the new Parliament, however it may be formed, to discuss the legislation, with an appropriate amount of time.
	If the Secretary of State wants to return to us with a different date for the sunset clause, we shall listen to what he has to say. As I pointed out yesterday, he has already provided for a proto-sunset clause in his amendments. There is a pretence that there is a huge difference between the two Housesan impassebut it is an impasse in the mind of the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who cannot countenance the fact that we could reach an accommodation.
	I return to the point with which I started. These matters are too serious for us to engage in knockabout across the Chamber, which I think does nothing for the reputation of the House. It is time we sat round the table and arrived at a consensus so that we can get these measures on the statute book. Why? Because it is the anniversary of a major atrocity in a European city and because we have been told that there are dangerous terrorists who need to be locked up for the protection of our citizens, but are now walking freely the streets of Britain. Those are the reasons why we need the legislation to go through in a form acceptable to this and the other House. It is time we sat down and ensured that that happens.

John Denham: When I became a Minister in 1997, a wise older politician said to me, John, before you take a major decision, just remember how it will look at the public inquiry into the subsequent disaster. Some of us fear that, in the years to come, there may be a public inquiry into how al-Qaeda were able to mount the attack that they succeeded in getting away with, despite the best efforts of our security services. I have to say that if a video were shown of the proceedings of this and the other House, it would not reflect well on the efforts being made to protect this country from terrorism.
	I say that because a Bill about terrorism has now been elevated into what has the signs of being a serious constitutional crisis, which should not have been allowed to happen. Mistakes have been made on all sides and people have become very heated, but we now need to take stock of where we are today.
	During my time in Parliament, disagreements between this House and the other place have occurred over many pieces of legislation. It has often taken place against the pressure of time at the end of a Session. I have never known a situation, however, in which a way through could not be found. In each of those cases, there were real differencesdifferences in the sense that two reasonable people could hold a different point of viewbut a way through was found. In every single case, the way through was found in support of the position of the democratically elected Chamber of Parliament.
	If we reflect on where we are with the Bill, it is clear that there are real differences in the sense that two reasonable people could take a different point of view, but those real differences are not sufficient to justify the constitutional crisis into which we are now falling.
	There are two major points. The first is the argument about the level of proof. It is a simple fact that Opposition Members who were in their places to do so, voted regularly for the prevention of terrorism Acts, which gave the Secretary of State the power to determine where British citizens should live. He had that power not after going to a judge, not on reasonable suspicion, not on any legal test or procedure, but simply because the man who is now the Leader of the Opposition said, You are not living there, sunshine, and that is an end to itno argument. The party that voted for that cannot sensibly now say that the argument about the level of proof is sufficient to provoke a constitutional crisis. It makes no sense.

Clare Short: Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) reminded the House about internment. This Bill proposes a form of internment, albeit with different gradations. People will be detained not for what they do but for what they might do. That, fundamentally, is what internment is, and everyone agrees that it led to massive recruitment to the IRA. Given that the definition of terrorism has such a low threshold, it is my serious view that by proceeding in this way we will incite more people to anger and make it more likely that they will support terrorist organisations. Therefore, I think that the revising House needs to restrain this House from making such a major error, especially as our procedures have been found so wanting.

John Denham: I resigned from my ministerial position before the war because I thought that that was the right thing to do. I shall take no lessons from my right hon. Friend about terrorism.
	It is of course possible for two people to have a reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the Bill is right, but I repeat that the Opposition never thought it necessary to have any judicial process or legal constraint before restricting the rights of British citizens. The House has considered the Bill and has reached the viewit is the same as minethat the current legal test is satisfactory and adequate, as it must be scrutinised by a judge, who must agree that the evidence justifies the nature of the restriction order.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Denham: No. This House has resolved its opinion; the question is whether it will be overturned in another place by those who have not been elected.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman must agree that there is a great difference, in nature and quality, between saying to someone, You shall stay in Northern Ireland and not enter mainland Great Britain, and, You shall stay in a particular location and not communicate with members of your family or use the internet or a telephone. The orders proposed in the Bill have a great deal more in the way of paraphernalia but, leaving that to one side, does he agree that the difference that I have set out means that, when it comes to those orders, there is a strong argument that the test of reasonable suspicion is inadequate? He presents himself as a voice of reason; I hope that he accepts that there is, at least, a difference.

John Denham: Interventions sometimes read well in Hansard, and sometimes they do not. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that that one does not. However, I am glad that he got to his feet, as he has just justified the fact that the previous Conservative Government introduced an order that restricted the freedom of British citizens but which had no legal process or test, and no examination of evidence.
	I quite accept that some control orders would be less intrusive than the exclusion orders. Some would be more intrusive, but this Bill contains a test. It provides for judicial process and a test of evidence. The Opposition never wanted that.
	We have established that the principle in respect of evidence has never concerned the Opposition. Reasonable people can take different views, and that is fair enough, but this House has considered the evidence question and come to a view.
	The second substantial issue that I want to raise is that of the sunset clause.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Denham: No. Two reasonable people can disagree about introducing a sunset clause into the Bill or providing for annual renewal, but the fundamental issue is whether we in this House, and the other place, should have the democratic ability, every year, to get rid of this legislation if we do not like it. That has been established as a result of the changes made to the Bill, and it is not the basis for a constitutional crisis between this House and the other place.

Alan Beith: I would like to take the right hon. Gentleman's mind back to the debates on the annual renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act, which are essentially the mechanism that the Government have so far agreed for a reconsideration of that Act year by year. The dilemma that faced the Labour party year after year was whether to oppose the renewal, in the face of the argument that Labour would prove soft on terrorism if it did, because it was a take-it-or-leave it situation. Does he realise that that will be the situation under this Bill unless we have a mechanism whereby the Bill lapses and must be replaced by new and better legislation?

John Denham: Of course the process of annual renewal can be limited; it was under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is a genuine and reasonable difference of opinion that one can have about a sunset clause as opposed to annual renewal. Is that a basis, however, for saying that the differences are so great that this House and its democratic majority should be overruled by an unelected Chamber? I do not think that it is.
	My point is this: this Chamber has improved this legislation considerably since its introduction by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As very often in the House, decisions in another place have had an impact and have been taken into account. Equally, the legislation has been changed by the actions of Members herelet us be honest, partly by those Members who did not vote for it on this side who might have been expected to, and partly by a number of Members who did vote for the Government but perhaps have made it clear that we wanted to see changes made. This Chamber has improved the Bill. We have now reached a situation where there are differences of opinion between the House and another place, but none that justify the House now conceding to the other place.
	We may well be fighting an election in a few weeks' time. [Hon. Members: Really?] So I am given to understand from the newspapers. The truth is that if the House is forced to give in by the other place, the election of every single Member of the House will be diminished as a result. The process will be diminished. Those on the other side who are organising in the House of Lords to achieve that should be mindful of the consequences.

William Cash: The Bill achieves neither objective: neither the security of the nation nor the liberty of the subject. The first duty of all judges is to maintain habeas corpus. In the preceding question that I put to the Home Secretary and to his Minister, I referred to something that I put to the Home Secretary with regard to habeas corpus:
	Will he state unequivocally now that there will be no interference with the right of habeas corpus?
	He answered:
	I am advised that I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman is looking for: the proposals that I have established will not interfere with habeas corpus.[Official Report, 28 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 692.]
	It doesthat in itself is a reason why the Bill should not proceed.

Edward Garnier: Has my hon. Friend analysed the Home Secretary's amendment (a), which is supposed to give us comfort because it provides judicial oversight? Has he noticed that the Home Secretary gives himself permission to make control orders, which can be overseen by the court only in very limited circumstances? It has to be demonstrated that the Minister's decision was obviously flawed. What happens if the decision was flawed but not obviously so? The Home Secretary's powers are left unattacked.

William Cash: My hon. and learned Friend is completely right. He demonstrates the fact that the Bill itself is fundamentally flawed. That is why the Bill must be subjected to a sunset clause, but in subjecting it to a sunset clause we shall then have an opportunity, during the time that this is available, to consider the proper basis[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out in the House. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House. [Interruption.] Order.

William Cash: The plain fact is that the Bill is fundamentally flawed on all the principles on which it is being proposed. It does not secure the nation. It is liable to create further trouble and dissention among those whom we are seeking to controlthe terrorists. It denies the liberty of the subjecthabeas corpusbut the Home Secretary refuses to accept that, although he originally said that it would contain habeas corpus. He would not give way to meas you noticed, Mr. Deputy Speakerbecause he knew that I would raise that point. All that he could do was come up with a cheap jibe.
	The plain fact is that the Home Secretary knows that the Bill must be subjected to a sunset clause, but I ask the House to consider the central problem with the Bill: it is dependent on the application of the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: Hurray!] Hon. Members opposite may have their moment, but the reason why the Bill cannot work is that there is an internal tension, which the Home Secretary knows, between complying with the European convention on human rights on the one hand and trying to ensure the security of the nation on the other.

Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that another central flaw with the Bill is that, ultimately, it does not secure a fair hearing for the person who will be affected by the control order?

William Cash: I entirely agree with right hon. and learned Friend. He is absolutely right. Indeed, I introduced a Bill two days ago to provide precisely this: if it were enacted, we would provide that a writ of habeas corpus and a fair trial in accordance with due process and the rule of law should be available to every person. The Bill achieves neither the security of the nation nor the liberty of the subject. It should be subjected to a sunset clause. Furthermore, during that period, we should also make certain that the legislation makes sense and disapply the nonsense of the European convention on human rights in respect of this legislation.

Win Griffiths: More than a week ago, I was able to move an amendment to the Bill thatif Opposition Members had been as zealous as they have been in the arguments that they have put forward in today's debatesmight have given us a different outcome, but they did not appear to be serious about the issues at stake. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took on board the issue about which I asked for a vote in the Housethat he should apply to court for an order to be implemented.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman may be well based in his point, but has he looked at amendment (a) to see what limited powers the court has to review the Home Secretary's orders? He should just read it, and find out for himself how limited are the powers of the court and how massive are the powers that the Home Secretary is giving to himself.

Win Griffiths: I have sat through all the debates on the Bill. We have discussed judicial review and there seem to be large differences as to how it would work. My view is that under the Human Rights Act, which many of the hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends seem to despisedespite the fact that it protects the rights of individualsthere would be every opportunity for a defendant to have his case put fairly in the circumstances provided for by the Bill.
	With the scope that the Bill gives for this place and the other House to vote down all the legislation on the orders, there is sufficient safeguard, with the other amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for the Bill to be accepted. No one on the Opposition Benches has mentioned tonightor rather this morningthat my right hon. Friend is already committed to bringing all parties around the table to try to develop new terrorism legislation that may enable much of the Bill to fall in future. Let us put that to the test. Let us vote the Bill through this evening. Let the other House listen to our view.

Peter Bottomley: If there were a free vote, who thinks that Members on the Labour Benches would vote for the sunset clause? Stand up. Come on, stand up. No one is standing up. Not a single one. If the Conservatives were putting that forward, who thinks

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [9 March].
	The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 211.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
	Lords reasons: 27F, 31D and 32E.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 27, 31, and 32 and on its amendments Nos. 27C and 27D in lieu, does not insist on its amendment No. 32D and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32 disagreed to.
	Amendment (a) agreed to.
	Lords reason: No. 33H.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords Amendment 33D and insists on its Amendments 33C and 33G in lieu, does not insist on its Amendment 33F and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Sitting suspended.
	On resuming

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we meet here, I understand that it has been trailed on television that the Prime Minister is making a major statement about these proceedings outside Downing streetas we meet here. You are rightly jealous of the rights of this House. Last night, it emerged that the Prime Minister's statement that the security services had advised against a sunset clause was wrong, but he refused to come here to explain. Is it not time

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am busy enough looking after the affairs of this Chamber. What goes on outside the Chamber is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] Order. This House has been called to look after a certain piece of legislation, and that is what we are going to do. I can deal with this matter simply and say that it is not a point of order, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to pursue it.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What I am going to do is this. In a moment, I shall read out the title of the Bill, so we will be given a time at which the clock will start ticking. I will then accept points of order.
	Before I do that, please allow me to make a statement. I would like to express my gratitudeand I am sure that I speak for all hon. and right hon. Membersto the Officers and staff of the House for the hard work and dedication that they have shown and I am sure will continue to show during today's sitting.
	Lords reasons further considered.

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords insist on an amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their amendments in lieu thereof, for which insistence and disagreement they assign their reason. They do not insist on an amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, disagree to the amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu, but do propose an amendment in lieu thereof, and they do not insist on certain other of their amendments to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and agree without amendment to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.

Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I associate myself with the observations made a moment ago by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)? You are by tradition, history and convention the guardian of the interests of the House and the protector of our ability to discharge our responsibilities. If a statement is being made outside the House that bears on these proceedings, how then can we properly fulfil our responsibilities? May I take it that, if the Prime Minister were to seek your approval to make a statement before the House, you would readily assent to that?

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that it is insulting and contemptuous to the proceedings in this House for a Minister to behave in this way? Will you not protect the House in these circumstances?

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past you have expressed grave displeasure when Ministers have come to the House second, after having made on a radio or television programme an announcement that was due to be made in the House. Is there not therefore precedent for you to call the Prime Minister to account for making a statement outside the House, instead of in the House? It is a contempt of Parliament. His Parliamentary Private Secretary is present. You could dispatch him to No. 10 and get the Prime Minister to come and answer the questions.

Douglas Hogg: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer. We are now on timetabled business. We are therefore considering the business before us. Many Members of the House, Government and Opposition have discussed the matter outside the House, and I will not stop anyone doing so. I have an hour's business before me and I am applying the rules of the House. That is what I will do. If someone tables an urgent question on Monday, I will consider these matters, but let us get on with the business in hand.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does it lie within your power to grant a brief adjournment of the House to enable us to study what the Prime Minister has said, in case it is germane to the proceedings that we are about to begin?

Mr. Speaker: That sounds sensible. It looks as though we will have a brief suspension within an hour and a half, and we can then discuss all the matters we want to discuss.

George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the right hon. Gentleman takes the matter very seriously, as he has spoken to me about it. We are now timetabled and the clock is ticking away.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a possibility that what the Prime Minister is saying to the press will have a serious impact on this debate. Until we know what he is saying, we cannot properly address the debate. Therefore, in seeking an adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is entirely right.

Mr. Speaker: Let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a promise. As I stated to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, within an hour and a half these proceedings will be suspended. I will look at a transcript of what the Prime Minister said. I promise to do that.

George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am getting rather weary of points of order that are not genuine points of order.

George Foulkes: Is it in order to raise points of order on media speculation and hypothetical matters? If it is, I could do it every day.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister's office have the courtesy to inform your office that he would be making a statement at the same time as we would be reconvening to discuss these matters?

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the House do now adjourn so that we can listen to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
	Copies of the Lords reasons are available in the Vote Office, as are the Government's propositions relating to the message. All Government proposals are being debated together.
	Lords reasons: 1A and 1B.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment 1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O and 37X, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 37Q, 37S and 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 8, insists on its amendments 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment 17 and disagrees with Lords amendment 37Y.
	In the light of the points of order, I should like to make it clear to the House that my remarks will set out clearly for the House to debate and discuss the situation on the Bill. As Home Secretary, I will set out the position in a moment. Right hon. and hon. Members will have every opportunity to discuss it.
	Later this afternoonnot at this momentthe Prime Minister will give certain media interviews. He is not making a statement, as reported. You, Mr. Speaker, were entirely correct when you referred to media speculation in that regard. Like many other Members of the House, as you observed, the Prime Minister is giving interviews later this afternoon. That is perfectly appropriate.

Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not.

Oliver Heald: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be making a point of order.

Oliver Heald: The information given on the television was that the interview was at Downing street at 3.30

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Home Secretary.

Charles Clarke: I turn now to the substance of this stage of the debate. The amendments before us, which would ensure that the Secretary of State must consult the intelligence services commissioner before making an order under this section, follow three sessions of ping-pong and more than 24 hours of very substantial debate in both Houses. We are now entering a fourth round of ping-pong. The will of this elected House has been consistent and strong, particularly on the two issues that remain outstanding between here and the Lords.
	Voting in the other place on those two issues has been as follows. On the so-called sunset clauses, the first Division resulted in a 150 majority against. That majority reduced subsequently to 85, then to 68, and finally to 71. [Hon. Members: That does not add up.] On the burden of proof, the Divisions resulted in a majority of 89 against, then 71, then 55, and finally 48.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No I will not.
	At the same time, it is absolutely clear that the position of this elected House of Commons has remained strong, and that it has done so while support in the unelected House of Lords for those who oppose the Government's approach is in steady decline. The reason for that is that the Government's arguments against raising the standard of proof for non-derogating orders, and against the proposed sunset clause, are clear and strong. I will repeat them.
	I shall deal first with the standard of proof, which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has spent a lot of time discussing on the Floor of this House. With respect, he is missing a point that is of absolutely central importance. The decision to reduce the standard of proof would inevitably lead to the likelihood that certain dangerous individuals would not be brought under controlthat is the core of the argument. There are other legal arguments that also have weight, but I will not refer to them now.

Michael Weir: rose

Charles Clarke: The core point is that passing the measures proposed by the Opposition would make it more difficult, rather than less, for us to deal with threats to the country.

Kenneth Clarke: If the burden of proof were changed, fewer people would of course be affected by the orders, but those who would not be affected would presumably be those who, on the balance of probability, were not guilty of the allegations made against them. How can the Home Secretary persuade us to resist that conclusion?

Charles Clarke: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, which he has made consistently throughout our discussions, it remains the case that we are talking about individuals who pose a very substantial risk to the people of this country.
	We all know that an individual who is a suicide bomber and who takes such action is in a position to create mayhem and distress on an immense scale. That is why it is important that we have the powers set out, which I stand by.

Parmjit Dhanda: On the burden of proof, the Home Secretary and I both know the difficulties that we in Gloucester have experienced since the arrest of the shoe bomber in November 2003. The threshold of evidence was very high when the police raided the house in question and looked for a conviction, which they got, but my right hon. Friend and the rest of this House should be aware that a shoe, a detonator and explosives were in that house for two years prior to the raid, so it is desperately important that the threshold be low enough for the police to do something about such a situation within such a period.

Charles Clarke: First, my hon. Friend is completely right in everything that he says; secondly, I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done in his community to deal with these issues; thirdly, and this answers the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the damage that that individual would have done is absolutely catastrophic. We have to take account of that, as my hon. Friend seeks to do.
	On the sunset clause, I have told the House on a number of occasions, and I set it out again here today, that if we put one in the Bill we will be saying that powers that this House considers necessary to deal with the threat that we face may, in the very near future, be thought not to be necessary. That will send a clear message to terrorist organisations that this is a place where they can thrive, and I reject that approach.

Dominic Grieve: If that is the Home Secretary's concern, why were the Government content to put exactly such sunset clauses in other anti-terrorist legislation recently passed by this House?

Charles Clarke: There are, as the hon. Gentleman says, examples of other legislation, of different types, which have sunset clausesthat is true. In each case, the argument needs to be taken on its merits. When I consider the merits of the case for such a clause in this Bill, I come to the conclusion that the risk is not right. There is a more fundamental reason for my position, which I have stated before and will state again.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: Not at the moment.
	If the interest of the Opposition parties and the other   place is in having substantive and substantial consideration of the right kind of anti-terrorist legislation for us, I point out that we have already put in place a whole series of means of achieving just that, and I shall list them again. There are the quarterly reports that I, as Secretary of State, make to Parliament on the use of the powers to make control orders and on surrounding issues. There is the independent reviewer, who looks at the whole operation of the Act, as a result of some of the changes that I have made, and makes a report to be laid before Parliament. There is the process of annual review that allows both Houses of Parliament to decide, by vote, whether to continue the Act. There is the fact that on the derogation orders there is also an annual renewal that operates in that way. There is the fact that, as I announced on 22 February, my clear intention is to introduce further counter-terrorist legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. As the House knows, our intention has always been that that would be in the next Session of Parliament.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, for clarity in the House, that none of the measures that he has laid out before us is newthey have been before us all the timeand the combination of those measures makes the demand for a sunset clause completely redundant?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right, because there is a choice with the legislation. One can take the approach, suggested by the Opposition parties, that there is a defined moment at which anti-terrorist legislation simply disappears. The other approach, which I think is better, is to say that we need to have a system that improves the operation of our counter-terrorism legislation, learns from experience and decides how, if necessary, we make amendments. That is the superior legislative approach.

John Gummer: Is not the Home Secretary entirely right, but the other way about? The only way the House of Commons can debate these matters without having to choose between no terrorism law or the present terrorism law is if there is a sunset clause.

Charles Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I will now explain what I intend to do to address his point more clearly.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an appropriate way of trying to build the broadest consensus across the Houseindeed, across both Houseswould be to introduce a draft counter-terrorism Bill, which could be considered at great length and in great detail by all sections of both Houses?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, I have a suggestion that I hope colleagues in both Houses, on all sides, will consider.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I shall not give way.
	I want to propose the positive course of action suggested by my hon. Friend because we know, following this ping-pong, that many colleagues in the other place understand that, in a democracy, the will of the elected House should prevail. I announced in my statement on 22 February my clear intention to introduce further counter-terrorist legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. I can tell the House that the Government will ensure that the new legislation that I announced some weeks ago is timetabled in such a way that hon. Members will have had the opportunity to consider the first report of the independent reviewer before they seek to table amendments. The effect of that, of course, is that the operation of the Bill before us now and the reviewer's independent review will be available to Members of both Houses in considering amendments to that legislation.
	To achieve that, I suggest a timetable along the following lines for the House to consider. I suggest that, in March 2005, we get Royal Assent for this Bill; that, immediately thereafter, we appoint the independent reviewer; and that, in the late autumn of 2005, we publish the draft counter-terrorism Bill and begin its pre-legislative scrutiny, which I promised to the House.
	In early 2006, the first report of the independent reviewer would be presented to the Home Secretary, who would lay the report before Parliament, as previously pledged. The report would include both the reviewer's report on the operation of the current Bill and the implications of the new offences for this Bill. In spring 2006, the new counter-terrorism Bill would be introduced in the Commons, informed by the analysis that I have just described. In March 2006, a year from today, there would be the first renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act order. Until July 2006, the counter-terrorism Bill would proceed through Parliament and, we hope, receive Royal Assent in July 2006.
	I say in all seriousness that the course of action that I suggest is a constructive attempt to find a way forward and out of the area we are in. It will allow both Houses to consider the situation in detail and, instead of allowing the legislation to disappear, allow it to be improved. I therefore now invite Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in this House and in the other place to recognise the value of my constructive proposal, to recognise the need for the views of this Housethe elected Chamberto prevail, to withdraw their amendments in the other place on the sunset clause and on standards of proof and to drop their remaining opposition to the Bill.

David Heath: The Home Secretary will recognise from my previous comments that the Liberal Democrats are anxious to find a way of getting round this apparently insoluble problem. Our prime requirement is that we have a mechanism by which new legislation may be introduced with a proper timetable and a proper opportunity to amend it. That was not on offer as part of the right hon. Gentleman's previous proposals. May I ask about what is now being proposed, which I certainly will consider carefully? First, will it be on the face of the Bill and therefore part of statute; and, secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the process will be complete by November 2006?

Charles Clarke: First, as I have said before, the hon. Gentleman and his party have sought on various occasions to make constructive proposals. As late as this afternoon, a different set of constructive proposals were made with which I could not agree. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that, unlike the main Opposition party, the Liberal Democrats have sought to take a positive approach on these matters.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second question, yes, it would be our intention that by November 2006 the new Bill would have Royal Assent; and, on his first question, it would not be our intention to place the timetable issues on the face of the Bill, but the statement before this House is serious testimony that the hon. Gentleman should accept.

Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend's proposed timetable must surely be the complete answer to anyone who says that there will not be adequate opportunity to test a new measure in this House. Will it not put to the test the motives of those who persist in opposing it, because surely it is puzzling that those who talk about fundamental principles ignore another fundamental constitutional principlethat this House has primacy?

Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct, first with regard to the primacy of this elected House, and, secondly, by putting his finger on the difference of approach that has existed between some opponents of the Bill. The difference of approach is between those who have been seriously concerned that there should be an improvement measure to ensure that the full applications of the Bill can be considered, and those who have proposed a sunset clause as a political tactic with no relationship to any other reality.

Clive Soley: My right hon. Friend explains in more detail what he indicated in outline last Wednesday, which should have been accepted last Wednesday. I put it to my right hon. Friend that, as he will know, he cannot put it on the face of the Bill, but in order to deal with this increasingly absurd situation both the other political parties could make it clear that, in the likely or unlikely event of their being in a position to do so after the general election, they would follow exactly the same procedure as he is, and then all three parties would be committed to it and we would have good way forward?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and it was he who raised in the debates in the House the desirability of all-party discussions after the general election to try to bring the difficult task of terrorism legislation to the state of affairs where it was dealt with on a non-partisan basissomething that used to exist when the Labour party was in opposition. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is entirely correct that the way to approach this is for each of the parties to indicate their serious intention to take forward in good spirit the approach that I suggest.

Kenneth Clarke: The Home Secretary appears to be giving a fairly binding obligation to introduce legislation that this House can consider in a proper, ordered fashion, with time for debate, this winter. I am sure he accepts that it would be rather shameful if his party were to win the election and go back on that. If the Conservative party were to win the election, it is committed to introducing similar legislation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying.

Kenneth Clarke: If the Labour party is successful in the election, a problem could arise if the scope of the legislation introduced by the Home Secretary's Government was so narrow that it precluded consideration of parts of the present legislation. Is he prepared to undertake that all the subjects that have caused the present rather serious crisis will be within the scope of any draft Bill that he brings before this House to consider in an orderly fashion?

Kenneth Clarke: I can give that assurance, and for this reason: it was from these Benches that we proposed the amendment to the role of the independent reviewer to shift the responsibility of the independent reviewer from simply looking at the operation of the control orders to looking at the operation of the whole of the Act. That is why the language I used a moment ago made it clear that the responsibility of the independent reviewer in looking at the whole of the operation of the Act was to make a report on all the matters concerned in order to inform the legislation that he proposes.

Douglas Hogg: rose

Kenneth Clarke: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, whom we should all like to see back at the head of the leadership of his party, is committing that party to introducing legislation of this type. To be entirely candid, I know that he is sincere in his support

Douglas Hogg: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot keep standing. He is not allowed to stand while another hon. Member is addressing the Chamber.

Kenneth Clarke: I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is committed to the control order regime that we are describing, and that he has simply had a number of objections to the way in which we have done things.

Kenneth Clarke: indicated assent.

Kenneth Clarke: He acknowledges that now. That is not true of those on the Front Bench of his party, and I am delighted by his commitment.

Douglas Hogg: rose

Kenneth Clarke: I make the statement I am making today

Douglas Hogg: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.

Kenneth Clarke: I make my statement in a constructive spirit, but I have to sayI want to make this absolutely clearthat if it is rejected by the Opposition parties, I shall have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending to my colleagues in this House that they continue to press for as long as it takes to put the Bill on to the statute book.
	I commend our proposals to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I told the Home Secretary this morning that if he wanted to discuss any matters in respect of the Bill with me or any of my hon. Friends, we were perfectly open to meeting him. Since then, the Home Secretary has been seen wandering around the corridors of the other place. Indeed, on one occasion, he spoke rudely to a Liberal peer about his speech, in a case of mistaken identity.

Kenneth Clarke: I do not think I was very rude. I simply thought that the peer made a very poor speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the other place.

Dominic Grieve: The trouble is, the Home Secretary spoke to the wrong person.
	That, I have to say, is, as far as I am aware, the full extent of the Home Secretary's approach to Opposition parties. It is certainly the case in so far as my own party is concerned. I take this opportunity, therefore, seeing that the Home Secretary has never engaged in the sort of discussions that[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have order in the House.

Dominic Grieve: I have previously been involved in this stage of a Bill's progress through the House. Under the Home Secretary's predecessor, issues were resolved because discussions took place between the parties. I simply point out that the Home Secretary has not been willing to do that. Therefore, the only discussions that can take place must take place here. It is difficult for him to complain if he does not approach other people to reach consensus.

Patrick Cormack: The Home Secretary has made much of the primacy of this House. Had he had proper regard to that in the way in which the Bill was introduced and handled, we would not be in this mess today.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. When the Home Secretary cited, at great length, his timetable for the passage of new anti-terrorist legislation, one could say only that one wished that something similar had been provided for this Bill, because then we would not have had the problem.
	I take this opportunity to explain to the Home Secretary the areas of disagreement that we have. I hope to take this opportunity to point out to him that there might still be ways forward.
	The Home Secretary dealt with the standard of proof. If he wishes to lower it to mere suspicion, I can guarantee that he will succeed in pulling in more people. It is inevitable that that will happen; indeed, if he decides to do it on a whim, he can lower the standard still further. However, if he is going to deprive a person of their liberty for a prolonged period, which is what his administrative action will result in, the question he must answer is whether it is proper to do that on reasonable suspicion rather than according to a normal standard of civil proof.

Donald Anderson: Is not this getting rather like a bad filmThis is where we came in? The arguments on the standard of proof have been rehearsed again and again. In my judgment, the Home Secretary has put a very reasonable proposition to Opposition Front Benchers. Is it so difficult to say yes or no?

Dominic Grieve: I merely point out that the process of debate, in which I thought this House was supposed to engage, does seem to have enabled us to narrow some issues, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) will bear with me while I raise again with the Home Secretary the issues relating to the standard of proof. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A Northern Ireland Minister keeps shouting. I have asked for order. I do not wish to pick out one individual Member, but I am being tempted to do so.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: indicated dissent.

Barry Sheerman: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I bet it is not.

Barry Sheerman: I will not ask how much.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is in a state of confusion. May the House be suspended for five minutes while he takes counsel from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please have a seat. I won the bet.

Dominic Grieve: If I start to speak very slowly and clearly,   perhaps the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will understand me.
	I suggest to the Home Secretary that the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities is a much better one. I urge him, again, to reconsider that.
	Let me turn to the sunset clause. I hope that Members and the Home Secretary had an opportunity to hear the debate in the other place that preceded this one. If they did, they would have heard Lord Morris of Aberavon explain that in legislation of this type, which gives the Government unusual powers, it is completely acceptable, and, indeed, good practice, that there should be some form of sunset clause. He acknowledged that the period ought to be open to negotiation, and he suggested that the Government suggest what that period should be.

Dave Watts: rose

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: No.

Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dominic Grieve: Yes.

Douglas Hogg: The Home Secretary has told the House that he expects to have new legislation in place by November 2006. That being so, does my hon. Friend understand why we should not have a sunset clause, which comes into effect in November 2006? Does he also understand that if that were before the House, even those who like myself are basically opposed to the Bill in principle would accept it?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. If the Home Secretary would only listen to what Lord Morris had to say, I believe that the matter would be capable of being resolved. I urge the right hon. Gentleman at this eleventh hour to do just that. He sketched out a timetable for his future legislation that, if I may say so, is undoubtedly helpful in explaining to the House how the Government intend to go about their business. However, there is no reason why that timetable cannot be married with a sunset clause. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Dominic Grieve: I have to say to the House[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that Ministers want to shout today. I tell the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Do not shout. If the hon. Gentleman is put out of the Chamber, he may not be able to vote.

Edward Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the Government truncate debate and one of the reasons why they will not allow a sunset clause is that they lack self-confidence in their own proposals? Does my hon. Friend agree also that a Government who believe in the merits of their legislation would allow the House time for debate and would allow time for the House and the country to consider the Bill with a sunset clause?

Dominic Grieve: I find it strange that the Government, who to my mind had the good sense in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to grant a sunset clause

Clive Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: No. I must move on.
	They granted such a clause in that instance but refuse to grant a reasonable sunset clause now, when the effects of the Bill on civil liberties would be far more draconian than the terms of the 2001 Act.
	I see the Home Secretary sitting in his place, and I begin to detect that he knows that the argument has merit. I fear that the truth is that he has been persistently overruled in this matter by No. 10 Downing street. There can be no reason for not uniting his legislative proposals with a sunset clause. I ask him now, before the Bill returns to the other place, to reconsider the issue. If he wishes to discuss it with us, he can do so.
	Others in the House

Clive Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: Yes.

Mark Fisher: I have, regrettably, felt it necessary to vote with the hon. Gentleman against the Government consistently on the matter of a sunset clause. Having listened to the timetable that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out, does the hon. Gentleman share my view that we have a sunset clause that would smell as sweet and sound as sweet by any other name? If we cannot see what is beneath our nose, I think that my right hon. Friend deserves the thanks of the House for an intelligent, flexible and witty solution, and we would do well to accept it.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Home Secretary's timetable is an important contribution to the debate. If the Government honour their commitments, there might turn out to be, or might probably turn out to be, a sunset clause. The trouble is that there is no requirement on the Government to turn the proposal into a sunset clause if, when the time comes, the Government decide to have two pieces of legislation on the statute book in parallel.
	The argument that if the Home Secretary is prepared to offer such a programme, there is absolutely no reason why a sunset clause should not be put in the legislation must equally well apply. We really cannot get away from that. I urge every Member of the House who wishes to see this matter resolved to look sensibly at the creation of a sunset clause that guarantees that this legislation cannot stay on the statute book for a day longer than is necessary.That is the issue; the problem has been that the Government have refused consistently to respond. I ask the Home Secretary to urge the Prime Minister to do so instead of posturing around in Downing street with his own media bids. Then we might be able to make progress. Until then, I regret to have to tell the Home Secretary that we stand by the Lords amendments.

David Heath: First, may I acknowledge a fact that has not been acknowledged in this debate? There has been movement between the other place and here in the process of these amendments. Two concessions have been made by another place in recognition of the Home Secretary's position: one on the part of the Conservatives in dropping the amendment on the Privy Council committee that they had been pressing; the other on our part in dropping our insistence on the reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, not because we believe that that was not the right way of doing it, but because we had acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman has at least produced an apparatus for achieving the consultation on prosecutions.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: Not at the moment. [Hon. Members: Go on.] Well, if the whole House is going to feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman, I will give way.

Michael Weir: I thank the hon. Gentlemanor perhaps the Housefor giving way.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the Liberals in the other place gave way on the issue of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but does he not realisehe should, because his party in Scotland is in government with the Labour partythat this creates a special Scottish problem? The effect is that a senior police officer will be the one to determine whether there is a possibility of prosecution. That is a novel concept in Scots law and takes away the traditional procurator fiscal service.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
	Two issues remain in play as far as we are concerned before we complete our consideration of the Bill. One is a matter of principle. The Home Secretary understands that we have a principled objection to the standard of proof that he believes is necessary and that we believe is too low. We will not agree on that issue. We have debated it time and time again; we will not agree. Nor will we stand down from our conviction that the balance of probabilities is the least standard of proof that is appropriate for the deprivation of liberties of British subjects. We shall persist with that, but we acknowledge the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to move.
	The other is a matter of processhow this House deals with this deeply inadequate, deeply flawed and deeply hurried legislation in future, so that we get better and stronger legislation to deal with the threat of terrorism. That is what we all want, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman, by a serial process, has given us to understand is his intention in bringing forward extra legislation in future.
	Those hon. Members who heard the debate in the other place earlier this afternoon will have recognised the fact that men and women of good will on both sides in that House were very anxious to find a way of getting round the obstacle of what has been called a sunset clause. That is clearly an obstacle because of the barriers that have been put around it by the Prime Minister and others as a matter for dispute between the political parties.
	The Home Secretary has put forward various proposals that enable the House to reconsider the Bill. We acknowledge that, but there is one last problem, which was quite unavoidable. That problem is the fact that Parliament would not be in a position to amend the legislation on renewal. Renewal orders are not amendable. As we have said repeatedly, the problem with that is that this House and another would be given the options of accepting renewal or rejecting it, and nothing else. It is not difficult to understand that. in the circumstances of a terrorist threat, only acceptance of renewal would be a proper course of action for responsible parliamentarians. Therefore, the House would not have the option of making good what we believe to be inadequate legislation.
	Those of good will in another place, in whose number we include Lord Morris of Aberavon, who spoke extremely well, Lord King of Bridgwater, who made an outstanding speech, and my noble Friend Lord Steel of Aikwood

Kevin Brennan: rose

Hon. Members: Give way.

David Heath: All of them were clearly seeking a mechanism whereby we might get around the apparently immovable obstacle erected by the Prime Minister.

Kevin Brennan: rose

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

David Heath: I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary's words this afternoon. Had he made those proposals with such clarity some hours ago, or even some days ago, we might have saved an awful lot of time. [Hon. Members: Ah!] No, the right hon. Gentleman has not yet convinced me. I want to see his proposals in writing and to consider their implications. I want the opportunity to discuss them with my right hon. and hon. Friendsand perhaps with the Conservatives as well, because I believe that, in this sphere, it is far better to have consensus between the parties than to have dispute. I hope that that is not an unreasonable view to take. I hope that that is what we all seek on a matter of such importance to the people we represent.

Charles Clarke: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's tone and I am happy to discuss with him and his colleagues what I am proposing in whatever detail he would like. I shall also be happy to make sure that a written copy of what I said is available for him and other right hon. and hon. Members to consider in a proper way.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and I take him up on his offer. We must now talk sensibly about how we can bring our proceedings to a satisfactory close. We shall not change our attitude toward the matter of principlethe balance of probabilities. He knows and I know that we differ on that point. However, on the point of process, if we can arrive at a solution that is satisfactory to this House and to the other place, so be itwe will have achieved substantial progress.
	My final point is simply that, had we had a timetable for such legislation three years ago, we might not have been in the lamentable position that we are in today. We might not have had to consider legislation of such importance against the backdrop of an apparent emergencyan emergency that is, in fact, of the Government's own making. It is the Government's failure to take seriously the process of review, the Newton committee's proposals and the views of all those outside the House who said that we needed better, more appropriate anti-terrorism legislation that has brought us to where we are today. Given that we are here, let us see whether we can make progress.

Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has spoken very reasonably. He should be given time to examine the proposition, so that he and his colleagues can come to a proper conclusion.
	The debate has been good in parts because it deals with grand principles, such as habeas corpus, which several hon. Members have mentioned. However, we have now reached the point at which, whatever the procedural faults of the past, we are narrowing the issues and coming close to consensus. The matter is now one of judgment and balance. In my view, we all recognise the nature of the threat. I was impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) said about the shoe bomber in his own constituency[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. It is unfair on the right hon. Gentleman.

Donald Anderson: Anyone who doubts that there is a real threat and often from unexpected quarterspeople who are not known to the policeneed not only listen to what very senior police officers have said about the numbers and nature of the threat, but simply read the details of the guilty plea of that Gloucester shoe bomber in order to get some indication.
	I think that we have narrowed the issue to two points.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a criminal court convicted that individual and that the legislation that we are passing will allow people to be restricted or detained on the basis of hearsay evidence through the security services? The defendant will know nothing about it; nor will the public, and therein lies the road to miscarriages of justice.

Donald Anderson: The nature of the threat puts us in unprecedented times. These are not matters of parking fines, as one former Home Secretary meant to say. These are times when young men are prepared to blow themselves up along with several hundred people who are on the plane with them. Therefore, this country has to have the appropriate means to defend our citizens.
	Perhaps we have at last reached a divide in our debate and we can separate, as I believe the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has, people of good will who are prepared to seek points of principle and try to reach accommodations, from those whose motives are somewhat different.
	As far as the standard of proof is concerned, clearly we have the difference between the balance of probabilities and reasonable suspicion. I have already mentioned the Gloucester bomber and the nature of threat. If I were sitting on such a case, I confess that, faced with reasonable suspicion or the balance of probabilities, I would bear in mind the awful nature of what would happen if I took the wrong view, and the effect on our citizens if afterwards I realised that I had applied too high a standard of proof and people were allowed to walk the streets and wilfully blow up our own people.
	I turn finally to the second area of concern and difference: the sunset clause. What I dislike about the sunset clauseI understand the motive behind it; it is a very honourable oneis that it is absolute. It does not allow Members to discuss matters properly and to go through all our procedures.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Donald Anderson: I am making a very short speech.
	Surely the key question on the sunset clause is this: what is the objective of a sunset clause and can that objective be met in any other way? After all, a sunset clause is only a device to reach a particular end. So I pose the question whether that end can be reached in a more acceptable wayindeed, in a way that gives not only this House but the other place ample time in which to discuss and to amend. It is absolutely clear that the alternative put forward by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary achieves that objective in a far more acceptable way. I therefore hope that reasonable colleagues on the Opposition Benches will consider that offer. Does it have to be written down? It will be in Hansard, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would sign his notes if necessary.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman is making some very important points. If the Government's offer is indeed a fair one, there can be no reason for not having a sunset clause in the legislation that would expire at exactly the same moment as the legislative programme that the Government are envisaging comes to fruition, providing reassurance that bad law, which I am afraid we are seeking to pass at the moment, will not stay long on the statute book.

Donald Anderson: Both the sunset clause and the device proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could achieve the same end. I concede that, but the disadvantage of a sunset clause is that it is absolute; it will fall at a certain time. The Opposition wanted, as a first foot forward, a six-month period until November. That was absolutely absurd in terms of our parliamentary timetable, even with the amount of days on which the House will be sitting before November. Even on March, it would impose an arbitrary timetable.
	In my judgment, the step-by-step approach that my right hon. Friend has reasonably proposed achieves the same end in a far more acceptable way. This will separate the sheep from the goats. It will certainly separate those whose motives are to embarrass the Government from those[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Donald Anderson: This matter will certainly separate those who, like the Liberal Democrats, hold a certain view on points of principle that they have properly put forward from those who may have another agenda.
	Looking at the proposal dispassionately and objectively, it is clear that it achieves the object that the Opposition have put forward, and it does so in a way that gives far more opportunity for Parliament without the risks attendant on the sunset clause.
	Finally, we have heard much about constitutional points. I have been in the House a very long time, and I know of no example in which the ping-pong has been so prolonged. In my judgment, in the past, those in the other place have recognised that, ultimately, it is the will of this House that will prevail. For whatever reason, they seem persistent; there is even a rumour around the House that they wish to adjourn until Monday. If they were to do so, they would clearly keep the headlines, but they would spoil the programme of the Government and their motives would be very much in question.
	It is the will of this House that should prevail. There has been ample debate, and a real concession and a real way through has been put forward by my right hon. Friend. Surely, any reasonable person should now accept it.

John Butterfill: I have hesitated to participate in this debate because I am not a lawyer, and[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Butterfill: I understand that the Bill was provoked by the situation of those in Belmarsh and the inability to retain them in detention, and the decision of the Law Lords that that was contrary to the European convention on human rights. If that was so, I find that difficult to understand, because it was said that they were held because they were foreigners and that it was not the same for British citizens. Of course, the detainees were detained as foreigners who were being rejected asylum and whom we wished to deport. It would be very difficult to put British citizens in the same position. By definition, that could

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [9 March].
	The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 215.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
	Lords amendment: No. 33
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment No. 33D and insists on its amendments Nos. 33C, 33G and 33J in lieu, does not insist on its amendment No. 331 and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 196.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 37Y: Ms Hazel Blears, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. David Heath, Mr. John Heppell and Kali Mountford; Ms Hazel Blears to be the Chairman of the Committee; three to be the quorum of the Committee.[Mr. Heppell.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not join in the congratulations and tributes paid to the staff of the House earlier today. On behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, I now join in those tributes. What the staff have done today has been magnificent.

Robert Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I associate the Liberal Democrats with those congratulations, and pay tribute, in particular, to the innovative way in which the staff adapted the House and the facilities of the House to cope with the unusual circumstances in which they found themselves.

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the whole House, I make exactly the same points. I particularly thank the catering staff, who have had to respond at very late notice and have done absolutely magnificently on behalf of us all in the process, and have had little sleep in so doing.

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords do not insist on their amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to which the Commons has disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendment in lieu thereof. They do not insist on an amendment in lieu of certain other Lords amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. They agree with the amendments proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

PETITION
	  
	Accommodation Centre (Bicester)

Tony Baldry: It gives me pleasure to present a petition relating to the Bicester accommodation centre for asylum seekers. It is signed by the leader and deputy leader of Bicester town council and the chairmen of Arncott, Blackthorn and Piddington parish councils, who are all affected by the proposal.
	The petition states:
	Bicester accommodation centre for asylum seekers
	To the House of Commons
	That the Deputy Prime Minister calls a full independent Planning enquiry after the decision by Cherwell District Council to refuse detailed planning permission for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers at Bicester;
	That Home Office Ministers have stated at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons during the passage of the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2002 that the government have made it clear that we will abide by the planning process, and by the outcome of any public enquiry . . . that is both fair and democratic;
	That councillors unanimously and comprehensively rejected the Home Office application on the advice of officers concerns over the inappropriate design of buildings; concerns over light pollution; concerns over road safety; and concerns over the effectiveness of library and education facilities;
	That the councillors objections echo the widespread concerns of every welfare organisation from the Red Cross to the Refugee Council and an independent Planning Inspector's report last year;
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to honour the government's clear commitment to the full planning process by calling a Planning Enquiry to take evidence from concerned organisations in the UK and others who operate accommodation centres for asylum seekers in other European member states and not bulldoze through the detailed planning application against the decision of democratically elected councillors.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Richard Younger-Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your earlier statement praising the staff for their hard work last night, in particular the Refreshment Department staff who went without sleep for 24 hours, they and the House might be interested to learn that the records in the Library show that this is the third longest sitting of the House since 1877.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

HEATHER BELL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Edward Leigh: It has been a long wait. As we have just heard, this has been the third longest sitting since records began and although to the rest of the world it is Friday evening, to us it is still Thursday. However, for me the 30-hour wait has been worth it, because the subject of the debate is important to my constituency.
	The debate is about the sad death of my constituent, Heather Bell, a rider who was thrown from her horse after it had bolted from a low-flying RAF Chinook. That resulted in a number of recommendations to help reduce the chances of such accidents occurring in future: first came the recommendations of the coroner, and then the petition from my constituents.
	I recognise that the Minister has taken a step in the right directionI give him credit where credit is duein response to the coroner's call for
	better communication with the public,
	and has set up a hotline. However, the information provided by the low-flying hotline is valid only at the time of calling. The caller must either
	keeping calling back
	for
	updates or . . . take a chance.
	That means taking a chance on death or serious injury to horse and rider. In the wake of the several deaths already caused by the problemI should emphasise that the matter does not just concern my constituency and the tragedy that occurred there; there have been serious injuries elsewherethat is scarcely reassuring.
	The hotline adviser told someone from my office who called to inquire about the service that
	if you were out for a couple of hours, we could say 'No, there's nothing'and then near the end of the ride
	a low-flying aircraft
	comes along.
	Given that the information is therefore limited not only to one specific day but to one very brief time slot and subject to change within a half hour or less, it appears that the value of the hotline is not much above the cosmetic.
	The same adviser took pains to stress that all times were just advisory, and that the best time to ring was just before going out. When asked what flights would be taking place between 4 pm and 5.30 pm in the central Market Rasen area in Lincolnshire, the adviser stated that there would be one large rotary during that period. The area covered stretches across Boston, Scarborough and Wakefieldsome hundreds of square miles. The information is therefore completely useless to anybody who wants an idea of whether a Chinook is to thunder down on them as they are riding a horse, perhaps causing it to bolt. Low-flying area 11 covers Humberside, North Lincolnshire, north-east Nottinghamshire and north-east Yorkshire4,618 square miles.
	The adviser could give no information whatever about the following day, and, as the MOD's press release announcing its launch last month pointed out, it is a helicopter hotline only. It tells people nothing about fast jets as they thunder across the countryside. If someone is planning to ride anywhere near a base or a helicopter training school,
	it will not be able to provide information on . . . activity around
	such locations
	due to the consistently high level of activity in these areas.
	Furthermore, the hotline operates only between 8 am and 5 pm. When I rang the hotline, I was told that it was too late and to ring back tomorrow. Could the availability of the hotline be extended, particularly as at times a busy person might not be able to get through?
	As the Minister is aware, I have called for the Ministry of Defence to notify the public on a website of a strip of perhaps 10 square miles either way where training is proposed and when, but that has not been done. Yet, as I have said before, there is no convincing reasonin security or technology termswhy it should not be done. The coroner accepted, as of course I do, that
	on occasions security issues may prevent publication of proposed sorties.
	However, he went on to say that he suspected that that
	would not apply to the majority of training flights.
	I am sure that the Minister accepts that that is entirely reasonable.
	I do not question in any way the need for the RAF to conduct low-flying training; it is protecting national security. Nobody in Lincolnshire is a fanatic about the matter; we all recognise that Chinooks have to go out. We just want warning of where they will be on the training flights, which I would have thought are planned in advance. Co-ordinates must be laid out and the pilot must be given them. It is surely possible for the public to be told.
	It is true that the current MOD website gives a skeleton timetable and calendar for low flying in the three most intensive low-flying areas of the countrycentral Wales, north Scotland and the Scottish bordersbut that is no good either to my constituents or, for the first few days of this month, to people living in those three areas, as on 4 March the website was still showing the calendar for February, despite the claim that it had been updated on 1 March. If the information was merely about leisure activities or various public services, that would be regrettable, but it is about saving people's lives and there have already been deaths. Regrettably, there seems to be no great sense of urgency about that at the Ministry of Defence. Neither does it give one great confidence that any online service giving information about low flying in my constituency would be as helpful as one would hope.
	The MOD website is not easy to navigate, and people need to know that the information is available before they can find it. When it is at last discovered, buried in a paragraph, it is pretty vague; time slots of up to eight hours are given for several days in a row in northern Scotland and central Wales. Even washing machine repair men can usually say whether they will be coming in the morning or the afternoon, and that drives us all crazy. I urge the Minister in the strongest terms to ensure not only that the current website is made much more user-friendly, but that the current state of affairs will not be the model for any other online information.
	None the less, the question must be asked: why could not the MOD apply even the same skeleton plan, with all its deficiencies, to the area concerning my constituents? Currently, all that they can find out about their broad area from the MOD's website is the total number of hours flown in North Lincolnshire. That covers hundreds of square miles, and it included bordering areas the previous year. That might be useful to statisticians or students, but I do not see how it will save any lives.
	Gainsborough might not be in the top three areas for military low flying, but that did not prevent 23 complaints from being logged in Market Rasen before Heather Bell's death. In fact, according to figures released to the Lincolnshire Echo last month under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the MOD received 332 complaints about low-flying aircraft across Lincolnshire in the three years between 2002 and 2004. As the Echo commented,
	That's the equivalent of one complaint every three days.
	The same report of 8 February recorded the fact that there had been another 45 complaints from residents in the Market Rasen area, including those in the villages of Glentham and Walesby, since the accident on 10 June 2003.
	Let me quote a few lines from the report:
	In Middle Rasen itself, two complaints about low-flying helicopters were logged on June 13th, three days later. Two days after the accident, on June 12th, 2003, a low-flying jet was reported over Middle Rasen. A low-flying jet was seen over the village four days later. One complainant contacted military officials to report a low-flying helicopter over Market Rasen on July 21st 2003just a month after the accident.
	Even worse, the report continues:
	A complaint about a low-flying helicopter over Middle Rasen was made in November 2004, even though the MOD has enforced a no-flying policy within a one-and-a-half mile radius of the village.
	The number of complaints is increasing. In 2002, there were 95 complaints; in 2003, there were 114; and in 2004 there were 123. Of the total 332 complaints, 262 were about low-flying fixed or non-rotary aircraft, mainly jets, while 56 concerned helicoptersand the MOD was unavailable for comment.
	Let us see what the Ministry does, apart from log events, when a person complains. According to the editor of the Market Rasen MailI presented a petition in response to his newspaper's campaign, which is why I have secured this debatethe complainant receives a visit from the RAF police, and the burden of proof is on the complainant, who has to answer technical questions about exact height and speed. Clearly, that does not encourage justified complaints any more than the current quality of the MOD website and hotline encourages use of those services.
	So what is to be done? In the three high-intensity areas, there are regional community relations officers, who, according to the website,
	act as the focal point for military low flying issues in their respective areas.
	Can we not extend the area covered by community relations officers? Can we not have them in other parts of the country?
	On the coroner's recommendations, I reiterate all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who raised this matter in an Adjournment debate last week, about reducing the area for low flying. I do not insist or ask that we go back to the pre-1979 situation. I know the arguments about that and I have received a letter from the Minister dated 31 March, but surely there must be a way of avoiding smaller towns and villages. There are arguments about increased use of simulators, which I would have thought was possible, and about improved technology vis--vis tracking devices, which I know Air Commodore Garwood called a very, very good idea at the inquest. I echo my hon. Friend's support for the coroner's recommendations on avoidance notices, specifically in the Market Rasen area. I would have thought that it was perfectly possible for the RAF to avoid flying over stables, which are fixed buildings, so those involved know where they are.
	The coroner said that his task at the inquest
	would have been made very much easier if the cockpit voice recorder had been operational.
	He therefore recommended that in future such recorders remain operational. He commented that as health and usage monitoring systemsHUMSwhich constantly monitor the condition of aircraft, like a constantly updated MOT, can record data for up to eight hours, they should be left on. That must be possible, as is the norm with civilian aircraft. The coroner suggested that more information should be coming out of the cockpit, and that is what we want. It could be useful in assisting the RAF police with investigations and to relieve complainants of the burden of attempting to supply the answers to technical questions about height and speed, which they cannot simply answer.
	The coroner's sixth recommendation was that, following the practice applied to fast jets, helicopters involved in low-flying training could be fitted with video equipment so that the whole sortie was recorded on videotape. I agree with his comment that
	if helicopter crews were aware that their flight was being videotaped then it would encourage strict compliance with Flying Regulations.
	It would also provide more useful and, importantly, immediately available evidence. There would then be no need for flight reconstruction. Does the Minister believe that that would be a worthwhile investment?
	The coroner's seventh recommendation in the event of future similar fatalitiesor, one might add, accidentswas that
	clear procedures need to be established to immediately secure available evidence.
	He specified that
	all flight crew should immediately be the subject of alcohol and drug testing,
	that the impounding of the helicopter should be considered at a high level,
	that no further sorties should be undertaken following such an incident, that the downloading of information should be given the highest priority, should be done by
	a member of the RAF who has considerable experience in such matters,
	and should take place in the presence of a RAF police officer. The downloaded data should be stored in
	a tamper-proof bag which should be properly labelled
	and
	immediately be placed in a secure place and kept under lock and key with limited access.
	I ask the Minister to note the coroner's comment that Sergeant Newton of the RAF police, who investigated the case,
	was not aware that Chinook helicopters had HUMS equipment fitted,
	and that
	he had received no training about which aircraft had such equipment and relied upon picking up such information by word of mouth.
	Another suggestion from the coroner was that inquiries should be made to ascertain whether it would be technically possible for the loadmaster, who sits at the left rear of the aircraft, to
	receive the same audible information as the remainder of the crew.
	Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the coroner's statement that these recommendations
	need to be considered in their totality.
	The Minister is aware of the petition launched by the Market Rasen Mail, which I fully support. It endorses the coroner's call for a return to a restricted zone for low-flying training and greater use of simulators. It calls for the lower limit to be raised above 50 ft and for devices to alert people to aircraft in the area, and recommends a recorded message briefing of daily flight plans.
	With the navigation system used in helicopters and sophisticated altometers, it should be possible to know where a helicopter is and at what height at a particular time, so that complaints can be monitored. I hope the Minister will accept that there is no more time left for words of comfort. He must translate those words into action, so that my constituents may feel that some good has come from the tragic death of Heather Bell. He must take action. The MOD has a reputation for being slow-moving in this and other matterswitness the debate over the veterans of the Arctic convoy this week. This is an opportunity for the Minister, in his final weeks in the MOD, to make a name for himself and once and for all resolve the issue of low-flying aircraft and helicopters.

Ivor Caplin: I join the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in welcoming the fact that we eventually got to the Adjournment debate after 32 hours. It is a particular pleasure on a Friday evening to be speaking on Thursday evening. That is certainly a first.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the debate and for the points that he raised in relation to a particularly tragic accident. One cannot begin to imagine the sense of grief and loss suffered over the past 16 months since that tragic accident, and our condolences are extended to Mr. Bell and his family.
	We must not forget that Alexandra Nixon and Melanie Dodds also lost their lives in similar tragic circumstances, and I extend our condolences to their families, as I did last Friday. I readily understand the strength of feeling shown by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, which has been expressed through him as the constituency Member, and in the petition organised by the Market Rasen Mail. The letter to which he referred summarised, I hope, the action that we have taken so far.
	The circumstances surrounding Mrs. Bell's death have been sufficiently aired, and I agree that we must learn lessons from this terrible accident. The Louth and Spilsby district coroner conducted an extremely comprehensive inquest into the death, and the Ministry of Defence provided our fullest co-operation, but before I turn to the coroner's recommendations in detailas I said I would last Fridaylet me address the individual points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the provision of a telephone advisory service as a first step to improving communication. However, he made a number of criticisms, which deserve some comment. He pointed out that the information is valid only at the time of the call and does not provide a forecast of forthcoming activity. That is simply because low-level bookings by military aircrew can be made only on the day when they need to undertake such trainingthey cannot pre-book training in the UK low-flying system. This approach is born out of the experience that weather, equipment availability and other factors can make earlier booking meaningless, and lead to the public's being given misleading information. The only exception is when we anticipate low-flying activity connected with a specific exercise that needs to be pre-plannedbut even that has to be booked on the day when such activity takes place. Moreover, given the short-notice changes that can be made to planned low-flying training as a result of a number of factorsthat can include additions as well as cancellationsit would be irresponsible for the system's operators to say anything other than that the information is valid only at the time of the call.
	The hon. Gentleman expressed disappointment at the fact that the telephone service does not include information on low-flying fast jets or on activity close to our main helicopter-operating bases and training schools. As I said last Friday, we intend to keep all these issues under review, and I hope that the House will regard that as reasonable, given that the phone line has been in operation for just 11 days.
	It is a fact that a high level of helicopter activity is expected near our main helicopter bases and training schools, which are known as dedicated user areas. We are, of course, extremely grateful to the public for their tolerance in these areas, but it is not practical to provide information about the number of helicopter movements there. However, the bases in question all have points of contact for the public, should they have any particular issues to discuss.
	We have never sought to mislead anyone about the service offered. We have made it clear that at present we are unable to provide anything other than a broad indication of planned low-flying helicopter activity. The information that we are providing has not previously been available to the public, and it does indicate the expected level of low-flying helicopter activity.
	I now want briefly to respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's other points. The information available on our website on low-flying activity is not buried, as he suggested. Indeed, a simple search for low flying on the internet provides a prompt and direct link to the MOD website; in fact, it is the first search result. Nor do I accept his view that navigating the website is an issue. For example, details on the new telephone service feature on our home page, with a link leading straight to the relevant low-flying information pages. I was also a little puzzled by his saying that information on the tactical training areas was out of date. As he said, that information was updated on 1 March, but it should be noted that it related to both February and March. Indeed, it has always been our practice to make available information on both the preceding month and the month ahead.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that 23 complaints were logged in the Middle Rasen area in the 18 months before Mrs Bell's death, but that should be seen against the background of the near presence of four major RAF flying stations. He is correct in saying that the number of complaints across the county has risen, but of course that might reflect an increased awareness of such activity.
	It is, regrettably, true that, on occasion, avoidance areas are intruded into by military aircraft. The hon. Gentleman made reference to a number of specific complaints. All such incidents are subject to full investigation by the defence flying complaints investigation team. However, I am surprised that his constituents find those investigations intimidating. The feedback that we receive is generally favourable. Complainants are pleased that their reports are being taken seriously. The investigators merely seek to clarify the reported facts as far as possible and ask only for estimates of height and speed.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to three high-intensity areas as having regional community relations officers. Those posts were established because of the amount of activity seen in areas where there is no RAF presence to give a natural point of contact. Given that there are two major flying establishments, each with their own community relations staff, within 15 miles of Market Rasen, that scarcely applies to Lincolnshire.
	I want now to deal with the nine recommendations made by the coroner. The first sought a reduction of the area in which low-flying helicopter training takes place in the United Kingdom. That is a complex issue that requires careful consideration, so we have established an MOD working group, composed of representatives of our rotary wing users, to consider very carefully the requirement for helicopter low-flying training. The low-flying system that we have in place today is not too far removed from that in operation before 1979, but to minimise disturbance we have moved away from fixed transit corridors to spread such training flights as equitably as possible across the remaining areas.
	The second recommendation was that we increase the use of simulatorsanother point made by the hon. Gentleman and by his constituents in their petition. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) also made the point last Fridayhe would be deeply disappointed if I did not mention it. I can assure the House that we use simulation as much as we can, and we are finding that the fidelity of the simulation offered to support our more recent equipment purchases is allowing us to make greater use of simulated flight.
	During the coroner's inquest, comparisons were made between the amount of time spent using simulation in training by civilian pilots and by military aircrew. I understand that one witness stated that over 90 per cent. of training in the civilian context takes place in simulation. Let me make this simple point: current operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I said last week, have highlighted the requirement for military helicopters to fly at very low levels in hostile environments, sometimes operating in poor weather conditions, flying under pylon wires, and operating in the face of enemy fire. That, I think the House will accept, is a rather different requirement than that for a commercial pilot.
	Another point raised in the petition was the height of low-level helicopter training. By the nature of their operations, military helicopters need to fly as low to the ground as possible. In some cases they are authorised to fly as low as 50 ft or even down to ground level if required for specific training events. However, only the minimum amount of flights at these very low levels take place, for very obvious reasons. Raising the height of those training sorties quickly reduces the training value for the aircrew.
	The third recommendation was that we improve our communication about our low-flying activities. We accept that that is a valid point, and we are looking at a range of measures to improve the flow of information to the public. I dealt with that in some detail earlier. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the opening hours of the phone line, and I can confirm that we intend to extend them to 8 pm during the summer months.
	The fourth recommendation asked us to consider the utility of improved technology to assist aircrew in locating horse riders. The working group is considering those aspects very carefully and will take into account the technical, cost and practical implications of the use of such devices.
	The fifth recommendation was to increase the duration of voice recording tape in our helicopters. Around a third of the helicopters in Joint Helicopter Command have the facility to record voice data. Those meet Civil Aviation Authority mandated standards for voice recording in line with civilian helicopter accident recorders. The aim of the standard is to provide a voice recording of any events leading up to an aircraft accident, rather than being a permanent record of the entire flight. The voice recorders serve to assist post-aircraft accident investigations as opposed to post-incident investigations.
	The sixth recommendation was to introduce video cameras into the cockpits. Given that helicopters can have sortie lengths of many hours' duration, the length of the video recording tape would become an issue, as would the endurance of the battery unit. To overcome that, there would be a requirement to hard wire the camera into the on-board system. That would present other technical issues, requiring Design Authority approval, which is both complex and expensive.
	During the inquest, criticisms were made about the way in which evidence was secured by the RAF police immediately after the tragic accident involving Mrs. Bell. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the coroner's seventh recommendation suggested a number of measures to tighten up our procedures and training of investigators. We accept that there were shortcomings and have since undertaken a complete review of evidence collection procedures, and enhanced training has been put in place. In addition, standardised processes have now been introduced in order to clarify precisely what action should be taken in the event of any serious incidents.
	In his eighth recommendation, the coroner suggested that the rear left loadmaster of the Chinook crew should receive the radar altitude warning. Currently, the handling pilot, non-handling pilot and rear right hand side crew member of a Chinook receive an audible warning if the aircraft is at risk of descending below its authorised height. We see no operational value in making that warning available to the rear left loadmaster of the Chinook crew. It is the responsibility of the flying crew to ensure that the aircraft maintains appropriate heights throughout a sortie, and we are satisfied that the addition of the warning for the right hand loadmaster is sufficient for those purposes.
	Finally, the coroner's ninth recommendation asked if we would give consideration to granting an avoidance for low-flying activity for the Market Rasen areaa point that the hon. Gentleman repeatedgiven that a considerable amount of equestrian activity takes place in the area. The House will wish to know that, as a mark of respect to the Bell family, we introduced an avoidance for military helicopters over Middle Rasen, and that that will remain in force for five years, after which it will be reviewed. That reflects, I know, the strength of feeling in the town, and I hope shows how seriously we take these matters.
	We have been quite open about the action we are taking in relation to the coroner's nine recommendations. We accept that there are lessons to be learned and we are serious about learning them. On completion of the consideration of the recommendations by the Ministry of Defence, which I expect to be concluded by the end of June, I intend to make a further announcement to the House, and I certainly expect that to be before the summer recess commences.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o'clock.